NKJV does not always follow TR of KJB

Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by Will J. Kinney, Jan 15, 2004.

  1. Will J. Kinney

    Will J. Kinney
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    May 15, 2001
    Messages:
    736
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hi saints, Pastor Bob mentioned that I could open up a topic that had been suggested earlier. Brother skanwmatos and Archangel both expressed an interest in this topic, so here it is again.

    The NKJV does not always follow the same Greek texts that underlie the King James Bible. This actually is not the main complaint I have against this version, but it is one of the many reasons I reject it as being God's true words.

    Here are a couple of the 30 to 40 examples I have found so far.

    2 Cor. 3:14, “for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; WHICH vail is done away in Christ.” The reading “which” (literally that which- 2 words- ‘o ti) is found in the TR of Green, Berry, and Trinitarian Bible Society. It is the reading of Tyndale, Geneva, Darby, Young, Spanish, the Revised Version, and even Douay. But the other Greek texts and Westcott /Hort have produced the reading found in the NKJV, NAS, and NIV. The NKJV says, “the same veil remains unlifted in the reading of the Old Testament, BECAUSE the veil is taken away in Christ.” This is a little change from ‘o ti (2 words) to ‘oti (one word) and the NKJV follows the Westcott and Hort text here and not the TR.

    2 Corinthians 4:14, “Knowing that he which raised up the Lord Jesus shall raise up us also BY (dia) Jesus, and shall present us with you.” The word “by” is in the majority, and N correction, but B says “sun” (in Greek) or “with” instead of “by”. The NKJV reads “will also raise us up WITH Jesus, and will present us with you.” Is Jesus going to be raised up again? Or is Jesus the person by whom we shall be raised? Here the NKJV clearly does not follow the TR reading.


    Will Kinney
     
  2. Taufgesinnter

    Taufgesinnter
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2003
    Messages:
    1,135
    Likes Received:
    0
    Regarding your first example, the original text would have said OTI, since there was no punctuation and all words were completely in caps with no spaces in between them. So even those who think the TR matches the original manuscripts have to admit the first example you gave is up for interpretation. With no spaces, an editor (or translator) has to decide on his own whether OTI should be read as 'o ti or 'oti.
     
  3. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Interesting, my nKJV is the divine, inerrant,
    preserved for the 21st Century English Speaker.
    Be careful not to speak evil against my
    Bible. Thank you.

    I find it interesting and reavealing.
    I was a Christian when i became an adult
    in 1964. So i've seen the pre history
    of the nKJV. The translators of the nKJV
    wanted to have a Bible translated by the
    mainstream US Churches (like Southern Baptist,
    and other Baptist groups of the time).
    They wanted to overcome the KJVO objections
    that nobody was translating from the
    same Greek Source as the KJV came from.
    The found the Greek Source the KJV came from
    is no longer available, so they documented
    the sources they had in footnotes.

    The comic book KJVOs reject the KJV1611
    because it has the Apocrypha and those
    pesky translator sidenotes.

    I spend a lot of time talking eschatology
    until i got kicked off the Rapture Ready bb.
    The various rapture/millinnium viewpoints
    all vary USING THE KJV1769 text. The
    difference is the meaning of words.

    Sorry, i probably won't be participating much
    in this desecration of my Bible: the nKJV.
    The two examples so far seen so trite.
    What is important is the meaning, not the
    word selection.

    [​IMG]
     
  4. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Not to mention that
    in English "which" and "because" can mean
    the same thing ...
     
  5. Pastor KevinR

    Pastor KevinR
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2001
    Messages:
    741
    Likes Received:
    0
    From what I've read the NT of the NKJV is based upon the Majority Text which the Rec'd Text is based upon, and yes, there are some departures from the TR, as the human translators (are there any other kind? ;) ) determined was a "better" reading. I respect your view regarding the TR, and although I am not KJVO, I think it is overall still better than B and Aleph, nor do I believe these texts are heretical, but inferior. Have a nice day!
     
  6. BrianT

    BrianT
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2002
    Messages:
    3,516
    Likes Received:
    0
    So why is it not a problem with the KJV itself does not always follow the the Greek texts that underlie the KJV?
     
  7. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,574
    Likes Received:
    10
    Originally posted by Will J. Kinney:
    Hi saints, Pastor Bob mentioned that I could open up a topic that had been suggested earlier. Brother skanwmatos and Archangel both expressed an interest in this topic, so here it is again.

    The NKJV does not always follow the same Greek texts that underlie the King James Bible.


    So??? Does that automatically make it wrong?

    This actually is not the main complaint I have against this version, but it is one of the many reasons I reject it as being God's true words.

    Your MAIN reason is that "it ain't the KJV".

    Here are a couple of the 30 to 40 examples I have found so far.

    2 Cor. 3:14, ?for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; WHICH vail is done away in Christ.? The reading ?which? (literally that which- 2 words- ?o ti) is found in the TR of Green, Berry, and Trinitarian Bible Society. It is the reading of Tyndale, Geneva, Darby, Young, Spanish, the Revised Version, and even Douay. But the other Greek texts and Westcott /Hort have produced the reading found in the NKJV, NAS, and NIV. The NKJV says, ?the same veil remains unlifted in the reading of the Old Testament, BECAUSE the veil is taken away in Christ.? This is a little change from ?o ti (2 words) to ?oti (one word) and the NKJV follows the Westcott and Hort text here and not the TR.


    The newer rendering is much-better understood by the English users of today. And we DON'T know if some copyist simply placed 'o ti' together into 'oti', now, do we?

    2 Corinthians 4:14, ?Knowing that he which raised up the Lord Jesus shall raise up us also BY (dia) Jesus, and shall present us with you.? The word ?by? is in the majority, and N correction, but B says ?sun? (in Greek) or ?with? instead of ?by?. The NKJV reads ?will also raise us up WITH Jesus, and will present us with you.? Is Jesus going to be raised up again? Or is Jesus the person by whom we shall be raised? Here the NKJV clearly does not follow the TR reading.

    So what? Does that make it automatically wrong?


    You're using the circular reasoning that the TR is ALWAYS right & that any ms that differs from it is wrong. You've acknowledged the scholarship of Dean Burgon before, but you apparently skip over his statements that the TR should undergo a thorough revision.

    As for "Will Jesus be raised up again?", the "with" means He will be present WITH us when we're raised. There are several other verses that clearly say that when Jesus returns, His saints will be with Him. You're trying to create a prob where none exists.
     
  8. Askjo

    Askjo
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,736
    Likes Received:
    0
    Right, the New KJV was based on the MT because the KJV and the New KJV disagree each other 2,000 times. It is sad to notify you that the New KJV excluded the TR - 40%!!!
     
  9. BrianT

    BrianT
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2002
    Messages:
    3,516
    Likes Received:
    0
    What are you talking about? Explain this "40%".
     
  10. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,574
    Likes Received:
    10
    Right, the New KJV was based on the MT because the KJV and the New KJV disagree each other 2,000 times. It is sad to notify you that the New KJV excluded the TR - 40%!!! </font>[/QUOTE]As I asked Will-WHAT'S THE PROBLEM???
     
  11. Will J. Kinney

    Will J. Kinney
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    May 15, 2001
    Messages:
    736
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hi guys, here is the article of examples of where the nkjv does not follow the same Greek texts that underlie the KJB.

    http://www.avdefense.com/nkjvnotkjb.html

    I just post it for your information if you are interested.

    Will Kinney
     
  12. BrianT

    BrianT
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2002
    Messages:
    3,516
    Likes Received:
    0
    What about where the KJV does not follow the Greek texts that underlie the KJV?
     
  13. Forever settled in heaven

    Forever settled in heaven
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2000
    Messages:
    1,770
    Likes Received:
    0
    Right, the New KJV was based on the MT because the KJV and the New KJV disagree each other 2,000 times. It is sad to notify you that the New KJV excluded the TR - 40%!!! </font>[/QUOTE]woohoo, what happened there?

    faith in perfect preservation getting shaky there?

    hey, if perfect preservation cld occur for the 136 Substantial disagreements betw the 1611 n 1769 KJB revisions, why can't it happen for the (alleged) 40% difference?


    where's the faith, my man? [​IMG]
     
  14. Will J. Kinney

    Will J. Kinney
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    May 15, 2001
    Messages:
    736
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hi saints, first let me say that I am not the one who posted that the NKJV departed from the TR 40% of the time. That was someone else.

    Secondly, regarding the supposed 136 changes, here is what Dr. Waite's book actually says.


    Dr. Waite and the 136 "substantial changes" in the KJB
    You mentioned that Dr. Donald Waite wrote a booklet showing 136 substantial changes and thousands of non-substantial changes when comparing the 1611 KJB with the present day editions.

    I have Mr. Waite's booklet right here in front of me. It makes interesting reading and is not so unsettling as it initially sounds. The "thousands" of changes are nothing more than spelling changes and the correction of printing errors, which were quite common in the early days of the printing press.

    By far, most of the changes are nothing more than changing words like Sonne to Son, and sinne to sin, seede to seed and blesse to bless.

    There are also a number of minor printing errors such as omitting a word or mispelling a simple word. These are things like "the shearer" to "his shearer" (Acts 8:32); "sacrifice" to "sacrifices" (1 Peter 2:5) ; and "made a" to "made thee a" (Isaiah 57:8).

    Dr. Waite was listing in his booklet the words that had been changed if you could HEAR the difference. You cannot hear the difference between "sonne" and "son"; "weepe" and "weep"; "owne" and "own". First, the facts... The King James Bible contains 791,328 words. Since the first King James Bible rolled off the press in 1611 to the King James Bible you buy off the shelf today, there have been - are you ready - there have been a grand total of 421 word changes! That's it!

    From 1611 until now, the King James Bible has undergone a grand total of 421 word changes, amounting to only five one-hundredths of a percent of the text! But that's not all. It gets better.

    Out of the 421 total changes amounting to only five one-hundredths of a percent, the following should be noted -


    TOWARDS has been changed to TOWARD 14 times.

    BURNT has been changed to BURNED 31 times.

    AMONGST has been changed to AMONG 36 times.

    LIFT has been changed to LIFTED 51 times.

    YOU has been changed to YE 82 times.


    Out of a grand total of 421 changes from 1611 to the present, almost 300 of the 421 are of this exact nature!

    We see that 214 of the 421 changes of the changes are from 5 simple words. Towards was changed to toward (14 times); Burnt changed to burned (31 times); Amongst to among (36 times); Lift changed to lifted ( 51 times); and You was changed to Ye (82 times). As you can see, the text itself was not changed and the meaning is exactly the same in both cases, but Mr. Waite included these among the 421 "translational changes". Of these 421 changes in form, 136 of them are, according to Dr. Waite, "substantial".


    Of these 136 examples 46 are changing the letter Y, which used to be used at times in place of "the". So where the 1611 said "Y", the change now reads "the". This is only the form of the word that has been changed. In fact, many times the original 1611 would use this sign "&", but that was then changed to "and".

    Of the remaining 90 "substantial changes" all of them are simple printing errors of the nature I mentioned previously. Other example among these remaining 90 examples are: "thy people" to "the children of thy people" in Eze. 3:11 (easily a printing error of skipping three words); "wayes" to "ways" 2 Kings 22:2; "wee shall" to "for we shall" Romans 14:10 etc. All of these are easily explained as minor printing errors; the text itself has never changed.

    The biggest printing error occured in Exodus 14:10 "and...afraid" where 21 words were accidently omitted due most likely to the printer's eyes having skipped from one "and" to the next "and".

    As you can see, there is no deliberate change in the text or meaning from 1611 to the present. To compare these extremely minor changes in spelling and accidental printing errors of no real significance, to the wholesale changes in both text, meaning and translation that occurs in the modern versions is totally unjustified. There is no reasonable comparison at all.

    The KJB we have today is the same as the one in 1611. Even the American Bible Society, which promotes and publishes most modern versions, wrote, "The English Bible, as left by the translators (of 1611), has come down to us unaltered in respect to its text..." They further stated, "With the exception of typographical errors and changes required by the progress of orthography in the English language, the text of out present Bibles remains unchanged, and without variation from the original copy as left by the translators" (Committee on Versions to the Board of Managers, American Bible Society, 1852).

    I hope this helps you to better understand the nature of the so called "thousands of changes" that have occured in the King James Bible since 1611 to the present.

    Yours in Christ,

    Will Kinney
     
  15. skanwmatos

    skanwmatos
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2003
    Messages:
    1,314
    Likes Received:
    0
    Brother Kinney, if you will continue to look at Dr. Waite's excellent booklet you will notice on page 20, item numbers 0144 and 0177 where "GOD" was changed to "LORD" twice. On page 21, item number 0067 where "LAMBE" was changed to "RAM." I am sure you do not dismiss those as corrections of printer's errors. They are actual word changes. How do you address those actual word changes in view of your position on the perfect nature of the KJV?
     
  16. Askjo

    Askjo
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,736
    Likes Received:
    0
    What are you talking about? Explain this "40%". </font>[/QUOTE]The New KJV derived from 40% of non-TR Greek Texts.
     
  17. Askjo

    Askjo
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,736
    Likes Received:
    0
    Dr. Waite examined between the KJV and the New KJV. He found 40% of the TR that the NEW KJV rejected.
     
  18. rsr

    rsr
    Expand Collapse
    <b> 7,000 posts club</b>
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2001
    Messages:
    10,079
    Likes Received:
    103
    The 40 percent, if I'm not mistaken, is from a critique by Jack Moorman of the text underlying the NKJV, in which he asserts that the NKJV text did not take into account lectionary manuscripts, about 40 percent of the total.

    That's not the same as saying the NKJV text departs from the TR 40 percent of the time or is based 40 percent upon non-TR texts.
     
  19. Askjo

    Askjo
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,736
    Likes Received:
    0
    The New KJV derived from the MT.

    The Old KJV derived from the TR.

    Please remember the difference between the MT and the TR.

    I think Will J. Kinney will explain better than me concerning the MT and the TR.
     
  20. rsr

    rsr
    Expand Collapse
    <b> 7,000 posts club</b>
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2001
    Messages:
    10,079
    Likes Received:
    103
    Just because you say something over and over and over again doesn't mean anything, other than you like to hear yourself talk. You were repeatedly asked to explain where you got your "40 percent" statistic. I provided a plausible explanation, though it didn't back up your statement, and you insist on repeating the same old blather.

    Am I right in my interpretation of your repeated "40 percentism?"

    Will has already disavowed the "40 percent" comment. Apparently, you have no proof.

    Honestly, it would be surprising that any nonparaphrase (or a nonfaithful translation) could depart from the TR 40 percent of the time ...
     

Share This Page

Loading...