Featured KJV Only Folks: What Bible translations should non-English speakers use?

I wanted to post more of what the NKJV says in the Preface regarding the texts it was translated from.

The last sentence in the above quote does not end with a period, but continues:

So the body of the NKJV follows the traditional text, but the copious footnotes, well, that's another story.

 

Mine does end with a period. It is also the end of a paragraph. It does however have a separate paragraph that states that there are footnotes. So I did not cut it off like you are insinuating.
Why are the footnotes a problem? There are other texts and the editors are open about it. Would you rather be ignorant of it?

 

1. I have yet to see one place where the NKJV went with a critical reading and the KJV didn't.
2. Yes, the NKJV has variant readings in the txt. So did the KJV.

 

Esv

This KJV matter could be settled if we'd all just switch to the ESV:laugh:

 

The South's Gonna Rise Again!

My old dear departed Southern Baptist Grandmother was from around Opelika and SHE used only a KJV!...so there! :laugh: By the way...in keeping with the Spirit of things.....SHE..."is forever settled in Heaven" as well!!!

Amen....and it'll be good to see her again!

Bro.Greg

 

I think the crux of the argument from those who have honestly evaluated this is that the NKJV often makes translational choices of undisputed passages in the same way what is more like some of the other more modern translation.

This could be as simple as translating 'fetcht a compass' as 'took a circular route.'

 

Marginal notes with alternate translational choices were also featured in the original edition of the KJV.

 

My Southern Baptist Deacon Daddy used only the KJV also. He is in Heaven, and so is my Mom. Some day, I will see them again!!!
(Daddy and Mom are both buried in Washington Georgia.)

 

If the Lord tarries long, my grandkids will be able to say, "My departed deaf Southern Baptist Grandmother used only an NIrV. My deaf Grandfather used the ESV and they are both in Heaven today."

So there, that settles it- :smilewinkgrin: :laugh:

 

In a good number of cases the differences in translating in the NKJV is like what was in some pre-1611 English Bible such as the Geneva Bible. I could list many pages of places where the NKJV is exactly the same or very similar to the Geneva Bible while the KJV is more different.

While the KJV updated, made simpler, or revised a good deal of what would be archaic language in the Bishops' Bible, they kept some of it where the Geneva Bible or some other pre-1611 English Bible already used language that would be considered more up-to-date today.

KJV-only advocates tend merely to assume or speculate that the NKJV must be following some modern English translation based on the Critical Text. There ignore the possibility that in considering what some of the archaic language would mean or say in standard present-day English the NKJV translators could reach the same conclusions as the other translators. In addition, the NKJV also likely consulted some of the same Hebrew-English lexicons and the same Greek-English lexicons that may have been used by those other translators.

The KJV translators could not consult those lexicons since there were no Hebrew-English and Greek-English lexicons in print in their day. However, the KJV translators did consult Hebrew-Latin lexicons and Greek-Latin lexicons, and those lexicons sometimes had as the definition of the original language word the rendering of the Latin Vulgate. Some of the Hebrew-Latin or Greek-Latin lexicons available to the KJV translators were made by Roman Catholics such as Santes Pagninus. The guilt by association arguments that Gail Riplinger attempts to use against modern lexicons could also be used against the ones used by the KJV translators.

While I have not seen any convincing evidence that the NKJV translators borrowed any renderings from modern translations from the Critical Text, even if they supposedly borrowed a few, how would that actually be different from the KJV translators borrowing a number of renderings from the 1582 Roman Catholic Rheims New Testament based on the Latin Vulgate?

 

Where do place God in comparison?

 

You are kidding...right?

:BangHead: Come on GB...you are kidding...right? The subject under discussion here is Bible versions/translations. It has nothing to do with the "order of priorities" of mine (or anyone else's) worship life. God is first...ALWAYS! That said...I don't believe you can seperate the God of the word from the Word of God. In my mind they are and always will be a part of the same basic priority that is central to the Christian faith. You can't even believe in God with SAVING FAITH unless you first know AT LEAST SOME of what His Word says about the matter. The Holy Spirit then takes the seed of His Word and.............!then comes the miracle of salvation!

God is 1st, God is 1st, God is 1st............ there.....feel better now?
(sorry...it is monday morning and I'm still working on my 1st cup of coffee!):laugh:
(by the way...I still do love my KJV, I love my KJV, I love my KJV! And always will!)
Bro.Greg

 

I also like the KJV, but also like Nasb/Esv/Nkjv/Niv etc!

Reserving love for God only!

 

You wrote that you love your KJV but my Bible says that I am to love God with all my heart, soul, minds and strength. My translation does not come a close second tpo that. There are people in prison who do not have a translation but still love God.

 

So What You Are Saying Is......

So what you are saying/accusing is....because I make a statement such as "I love my KJV" (during a discussion ABOUT the KJV) that I am implying that I either don't love God or put Him first...is that right?

Unbelievable...(shaking my head).... that I even have to say this but.........I DO LOVE GOD...FIRST,FOREMOST and ALWAYS...and as much as I can with my limited understanding....with all my heart, soul, mind and strength......and I STILL do love my KJV .....and I thank GOD that He brought me around to the settled CONVICTIONS that I have concerning the Word of God (which I am sure you would disagree with me about)...that is your right.

I will now crawl back into my foxhole and reload my weapons so I can re-engage in the battle at some point in the future.

Bro.Greg

 

Don't think its directed to you, but MANY int he KJVO camp have taken their belief in KJV to almost idolatry levels!

 

I think Greg meant that he loves God's word and believes that it is contained in the KJV. I don't think he's a bible idolater. I love God's word too. I love, love, love it! :love2:
I love all my bibles too. Does that make me a heretic?

 

I agree but.......

I agree with your statement above and I think that is sad and unfortunate because in doing so they tend to ride the issue as a "hobby horse" and it seems to take up most of their energy in their "ministry". As for me....I'm just a layman and I enjoy a good debate/discussion about this and a variety of other relevant topics. This isn't all I'm about.

While agreeing with your statement I will also say that I have seen many in the MV/CT camp take their beliefs to the same level of near idolatry (or beyond) by elevating their devotion to the Greek/Hebrew/Aramaic/Latin,etc. texts and "scholarship" (or some institution of higher learning) in general to unreasonable and sometimes arrogant heights. I just believe I have ONE Bible that God has obviously blessed for many years (and still does) that I can depend on without any need for so many other conflicting translations. God can reveal, by His Holy Spirit, anything I need to know as listed in 2 Timothy 3:16-17 for His glory and my edification. I believe I'm going to stay right where I am.:thumbsup:

Let all the scholars fight it out! I know I got a good Bible and don't need anything else. When I get to heaven I'll have enough to discover to keep me busy for an eternity. I just want to take some other saved sinners there with me!raying:

Bro.Greg

 

Thank You Amy

Thank you for your support!:thumbsup: You said it better than I could.

For the record (I seem to say that a lot:laugh I do own numerous versions of the Bible and when needed I do refer to some of them for comparative purposes. I can say though that I have never found any of them to be up to the level of accuracy and authority that I believe the KJV exhibits.

Bro.Greg

 

Cannot serve two masters.