Is the NKJV a "great Bible" like the Bishops'?

Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by Logos1560, Feb 10, 2009.

  1. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    In another thread, stilllearning posted: "But in the same breath, I said that there were many other great Bibles of that time:
    (William Tyndale's Bible), (Miles Coverdale's Bible), (John Wycliffe’s Bible), (The Bishop's Bible), (The Geneva Bible) etc.
    So in the strictest since [sense], I am not really KJVO."

    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    It is interesting that the pre-1611 English Bibles of which the KJV was a revision can be referred to as "great Bibles" when some of them differ more from the KJV at a number of places than some present English Bibles such as the NKJV, Modern KJV, KJ21, or KJ2000.

    The 1611 KJV was officially a revision of the 1602 edition of the 1568 Bishops' Bible. Nevertheless, there seem to be greater [and perhaps more] differences between the Bishops' Bible and the 1611 KJV than there are between the KJV and the NKJV. Changes in the English language in the 40-50 years between the 1568 Bishops' Bible and the 1611 KJV do not explain all the many differences between them. On the other hand, the over 350 years between the 1611 KJV and the 1982 NKJV with the many changes in the meanings of words in the English language do explain a good number of the updatings and changes that the NKJV made in the KJV.

    Since the NKJV is more in agreement with the KJV at many places than the KJV is in agreement with the Bishops' Bible and since many of the differences between the KJV and NKJV are updatings and revisions of archaic language, should the NKJV be considered a "great Bible" if the Bishops' Bible can be considered a "great Bible?"

    If you are not "really KJVO," it seems that you should be willing to consider the NKJV a "great Bible" in the same line of Bibles with the KJV, Geneva, Bishops', etc.
     
  2. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,407
    Likes Received:
    328
    Perfectly reasonable -- therefore totally unacceptable according to KJVO practice.
     
  3. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    Insteada saying, "The Geneva, Bishop's, etc. differ from the KJV in XX verse", perhaps we should say, "The KJV differs from the Geneva, Bishop's, etc. at XX verse."
     
  4. SBCPreacher

    SBCPreacher
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    2,764
    Likes Received:
    0
    Is that allowable?
     
  5. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    Does the following characteristic of the Bishops' Bible make it a "great Bible?"

    Glenn Conjurske pointed out: “One evident blemish of the Bishops’ Bible lies in its frequent flat and unnecessary additions in brackets [or italics]” (Olde Paths, March, 1996, p. 57). Blackford Condit maintained that “the text of the Bishops’ Bible is weakened still more by the introduction of explanatory words and phrases; a seeming attempt to expound as well as translate the original text” (History, p. 286). Concerning the Bishops‘ Bible, Scrivener asserted that “it is one of the most considerable faults of this not very successful version, that its authors assumed a liberty of running into paraphrase” (Authorized Edition, p. 62).

    The following examples should support and confirm the above statements. Some of the additions may have first been added in the Great Bible or another earlier English Bible. The Bishops’ Bible added the words “in companies” at Genesis 14:15. It added: “shall he bear out“ (Lev. 4:11), “of the altar“ (Num. 18:9), “Ye shall number the people“ (Num. 26:4), “That is to wit“ (Num. 31:43), and “as upon an horse“ (Deut. 32:26) Some other example additions include the following: “otherwise called“ (Jud. 8:35), “so shall my house be, but not“ (2 Sam. 23:4), “as namely” (1 Kings 6:29), “that is to wit” (1 Kings 9:10), “offence which Solomon hath committed“ (1 Kings 11:39), “with your cry” (1 Kings 18:27), “that came in his way” (1 Kings 20:20), “in the ceremonies“ (2 Kings 17:8), “I beseech thee” (2 Kings 19:16), “O thou king of Assyria“ (2 Kings 19:21), “even so deal with me“ (2 Chron. 2:3), and “shall this building be“ (2 Chron. 2:6). At the end of Job 9:24, it added: “that can shew the contrary.“ It added “to God” at Job 35:14. In the middle of Psalm 139:20, this addition is found: “thou art O God.“ At the end of Isaiah 1:7, it added: “in the time of war.“ After the word “replenish” at Isaiah 2:6, it added “with evils,“ and it added “the wicked ones of” before “the earth” at the end of Isaiah 2:19 and 2:21. In the middle of Isaiah 3:14, this addition is found: “and shall say to them.“ These words are found in a different size type at the end of Isaiah 3:18: “after the fashion of the moon.“ In the middle of Isaiah 8:19, these additional words are found: “then make them this answer.“ At the beginning of Jeremiah 4:22, it added: “Nevertheless, this shall come upon them.“ At Jeremiah 28:9, it has this addition: “if God hath sent them in very deed.“ It added “when ye had gotten the victory” at the end of Jeremiah 50:11. At the end of Jeremiah 50:28, it added “yea, a voice of them that cry against Babylon.“ At Ezekiel 28:14, it added this phrase: “in this dignity.“ The words “their sacrifices” were added at the end of Ezekiel 40:41. At Ezekiel 45:2, the Bishops’ Bible has the following two additions in a different size type: “in length” and “in breadth.” This chapter has another addition [“a portion shall be” (45:7)]. At the beginning of Daniel 7:20, six words were added [“I desired …to know the truth”]. After “Loruhamah” in Hosea 1:6, it added: “that is, not obtaining mercy.“ Likewise, it added after “Loammi” in Hosea 1:9: “that is, not my people.“ More Old Testament examples could be given.


    More such examples of additions are also found in its New Testament. The Bishops' Bible's has this addition at John 18:13 ["And Annas sent Christ bound unto Caiaphas the high priest"]. At John 18:22, the Bishops' Bible has the rendering "smote Jesus with a rod." The Bishops’ Bible inserted “the fishers” at Matthew 13:48. At Matthew 26:30, the Bishops’ began as follows: "when they had praised God." After “preparing” at John 19:31, it inserted “of the Sabboth.“ It added "of the synagogue" in italics or a different size type at Matthew 9:18, "of God" at Matthew 26:64, "of the gospel" at Mark 2:2, “from the region which is“ at Mark 3:8, “And said“ at Mark 10:7, “of God“ at Mark 14:62, “of the city“ at Mark 15:43, “of their sins” at Luke 10:13, “at the doors“ at Luke 14:35, “and no man gave unto him“ at Luke 16:21, “the means“ at John 5:16, “the means“ at John 6:57, “as though he heard them not” at John 8:6, “on high“ at John 8:28, “unto you“ at John 16:15, “any question“ at John 16:30, “unto them“ at Acts 2:41, “unto him“ at Acts 8:37, “one Scripture with another“ at Acts 9:22, “that is“ at Acts 15:22, “that is to say“ at Acts 15:29, “of the Lord“ at Acts 19:9, “that is to say“ at Acts 28:25, “the inheritance given“ at Romans 4:16, “election“ at Romans 9:16, “I mean“ at Romans 9:24, “nations“ at Romans 11:32, “not only before God, but also“ at Romans 12:17, "I did not mean" at 1 Corinthians 5:10, and “the shedding of“ at Hebrews 12:4. At the end of 1 Corinthians 9:25, it added “to obtain” before “an incorruptible” and “crown” after it. At the end of Revelation 9:11, it added “that is to say, a destroyer.“
     
  6. EdSutton

    EdSutton
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2006
    Messages:
    8,755
    Likes Received:
    0
    Interesting that the list of "great Bibles" did not include the Great Bible, no?? :confused:

    Ed
     
  7. franklinmonroe

    franklinmonroe
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    2,872
    Likes Received:
    3
    I would like stilllearning to confirm in writing here on the BB that he has read a significant portion (perhaps 33% or more) of each individual one of these versions to validate the legitimacy of his personal appraisal of them.
     
  8. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    Yes, it is interesting. Perhaps the Great Bible was included in the "etc." The 1539 Great Bible was one of the pre-1611 English Bibles of which the KJV was a revision. Perhaps some KJV-only advocates inconsistently seek to avoid connecting it to the KJV because they are aware of some of the additions that the Great Bible adds from the Latin Vulgate. The 1568 Bishops' Bible was officially a revision of the Great Bible. The close connection of the KJV with the Bishops' Bible also connects the KJV to the Great Bible.
     
  9. EdSutton

    EdSutton
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2006
    Messages:
    8,755
    Likes Received:
    0
    "This happens to be entirely and precisely correct, but I'd almost bet you ain't often heard that, hunh!

    The earlier doesn't ever differ from the successor, but rather the other way around, as the standard of comparison was already set.

    In the case of "Modern English", that is the TYN for the NT and the MCB for the OT and Apocrypha.

    Any and every other "Modern English" version may meet, exceed or fall short of another that preceeded it, but the predecessor does not differ from the latter, although it may be properly said that it differs with the latter."

    Signed, Language Cop









    "Uh-oh!!"

    [Sigh!!]

    (Giving ol' L.C. plenty of space!)

    "It looks like Language Cop is gonna' be in another one of those moods, today!" :rolleyes:

    Ed
     
  10. EdSutton

    EdSutton
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2006
    Messages:
    8,755
    Likes Received:
    0
    Personally, I'd kinda' avoid the Great Bible, simply 'cause I don't particularly wanna' carry around any 50# Bible, that is chained to a pulpit that may weigh another ton or so.

    That would really make it a "great" BIG load to haul around. :thumbsup: :laugh: :laugh:

    Ed
     
    #10 EdSutton, Feb 12, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 12, 2009
  11. EdSutton

    EdSutton
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2006
    Messages:
    8,755
    Likes Received:
    0
    Let me merely suggest you don't hold your own breath, while waiting for a response to this from the OP. :rolleyes:

    The great majority of my own questions to the OP given in response to things he has brought up are still waiting to be answered.

    Regularly, on this forum, I see that refutations of historical errors are ignored, and are repeated, 'ad nausea'(a); Christians are often denigrated regularly, including translators of the very written Word of God; Opinion is attempted to be foisted as 'fact' as opposed to one's personal preference; etc.; et al..

    Funny how that works for some, apparently.

    (FTR, were I to characterize such as Drs. John Wycliffe, Myles Smith, John Rainolds, or Messers William Tyndale, Desiderius Erasmus and Miles Coverdale, to name only a handful, in a similar manner to that that some have characterized some of the latter day Translators of the Bible and the Moderators did not snip that and warn me, if not even give me an undesired BB "vacation", I would consider them derelict of their duties, to say the very least. It is far different to disagree with the way something has been rendered, as opposed to attacking the very character of believers who have, in some cases, given much of their energies, if not even their very lives for the Bible!)

    Ed

    (a) ad nausea - where one gets sick of hearing the same false 'junk' repeated time after time
     
    #11 EdSutton, Feb 12, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 12, 2009

Share This Page

Loading...