Does the KJV follow a strict and faithful method of translation?

In another thread,

Can it be demonstrated or proven that the Church of England makers of the KJV always followed a strict and faithful method of translation with a strict adherence to formal equivalency?

Did the 1611 KJV provide a faithful literal form-equivalent English rendering for every original-language word in their underlying texts without adding any words in English for which they had no original-language words of Scripture?

 

Baptist pastor Glenn Conjurske, who is a defender of the KJV and a critic of modern English versions and who admits his bias for the KJV, acknowledged: “I grant that there is too much paraphrasing in the King James Version, more especially in the Old Testament. But even this may be excused, at least in part” (Olde Paths, October, 1997, p. 236).

Perhaps because of his love and bias for the KJV, Glenn Conjurske maintained that “it was proper—or at any rate excusable—to retain a certain amount of paraphrase from the older versions” (Ibid.). Glenn Conjurske claimed: “Much of the paraphrasing in the King James Version is retained from Tyndale and Coverdale” (Ibid.).

Even though he is critical of the NKJV, Glenn Conjurske admitted: “The New King James Version has doubtless removed some paraphrasing which was in the old version” (Ibid.).

 

Consider one example of what D. A. Waite labelled as being a dynamic equivalency in the NKJV. D. A. Waite claimed that the NKJV rendering "Rock" at Habakkuk 1:12 "changes noun," "omits noun for Deity," and "omits adjective" (NKJV compared to KJV, pp. 15, 68). D. A. Waite counted this one difference as supposedly being three dynamic equivalencies in the NKJV [#1459, 2002, 2003] even though it was not even one.

In the 1611 marginal note at Habakkuk 1:12, the KJV translators gave the literal, word-for-word meaning of the Hebrew word as follows: "Heb. rock."

In other references, the KJV translators rendered this same Hebrew word as "rock," including references where this word was used of God (Deut. 32:4, 15, 18, 30). At Deuteronomy 32:4, this same Hebrew word was translated “most mighty God” in the Bishops’ Bible while it was revised to “Rock” in the KJV. Would Waite claim that the KJV omits adjective and omits noun for Deity at Deuteronomy 32:4 when compared to Bishops’ Bible unless his allegation against the NKJV was an example of the use of unjust measures or double standards? At Habakkuk 1:12, the NKJV did not actually omit an adjective in the Hebrew when it accurately translated the Hebrew noun for “rock” while the KJV did add an adjective where there was not one in the Hebrew.

Is the KJV-only ruler or measure for what constitutes a dynamic equivalency so stretchable, malleable, and flexible that a literal, word-for-word, accurate rendering in the NKJV is alleged to be one?
Do KJV-only advocates seem sometimes to use a rubber ruler when asked to apply their own measures for what constitutes a dynamic equivalency to the hundreds or thousands of changes that the makers of the KJV made to the pre-1611 English Bibles and to any non-literal renderings of the Hebrew or the Greek?

KJV-only reasoning is clearly inconsistent as demonstrated by the fact that KJV-only assertions and allegations are applied inconsistently and thus unjustly.

 

I have not confused your views as I have soundly addressed specific assertions that you yourself make. I assume that you are sincere, but you make assertions for the KJV that are not true.

How am I wrong to think that you believe what you yourself assert in your own posts?

An inconsistent, unjust rejection of the NKJV based on the Textus Receptus would conflict with the claims of those who suggest that they are Textus Receptus-only.

The Trinitarian Bible Society makes some unjust allegations against the NKJV, and it does not apply the same exact measures/standards to the translation decisions involved in the making of the KJV as it inconsistently does to those involved in the making of the NKJV.

 

Here is one example of the use of different measures/standards. In his booklet published by the Trinitarian Bible Society and concerning 1 Chronicles 6:28 in the NKJV, Malcolm Watts claimed: “(Vashni), the name of Samuel’s firstborn son, is changed to Joel after the Septuagint, Syriac, and Arabic. He appears to be called both names (see verse 33 and 1 Samuel 8:2), but there is no textual justification for the other name being included here” (NKJV: A Critique, p. 2).

KJV-only author D. A. Waite listed this rendering in the NKJV as a dynamic equivalency and claimed that it came from a non-Masoretic text (NKJV compared to KJV, p. 36).

Concerning this verse, E. W. Bullinger asserted: “Here there is an Ellipsis of the name of the firstborn: while the [Hebrew] word, Vashni, when otherwise pointed means ‘and the second’ so that the verse reads, ‘And the sons of Samuel; the firstborn [Joel] and the second Abiah. This agrees with the Syriac Version’” (Figures of Speech, p. 5). Bullinger added: “’Joel’ is supplied from verse 33 (see also 1 Sam. 8:2, and the note in Ginsburg’s edition of the Hebrew Bible)” (Ibid.). Bullinger maintained that “Vashni is not a proper name, but means ‘the second’” (p. 104 note). The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia also noted: “The explanation of this is that in 1 Chronicles 6:28 the word taken as a proper name is really ‘and second’” (Vol. 5, p. 3046). Is there actually no sound justification to supply words in italics when there is a use of a Hebrew figure of speech such as an Ellipsis that omits a word or words since the KJV translators do the same thing in several other verses? One example would be at 2 Kings 25:3 where the makers of the KJV added two words in italics to supply words omitted in an Ellipsis [“And on the ninth day of the fourth month”]. Bullinger noted: “The Hebrew reads, ‘and on the ninth month.’ But the Ellipsis is correctly supplied from Jeremiah 52:6” (Figures of Speech, p. 20). Would D. A. Waite consider the places where the KJV supplies words omitted in an Ellipsis dynamic equivalent renderings?


Do KJV defenders also ignore the evidence that there are places where the KJV translators may have amended the traditional Hebrew Masoretic text using other textual sources and readings in other verses in the same manner that they allege concerning the NKJV? At 1 Chronicles 9:41, the KJV translators amended the Masoretic Text by adding "and Ahaz" in italics perhaps because these words are found in the Latin Vulgate, Syriac Version, and 1 Chronicles 8:35. Robert Girdlestone maintained that the A. V. “does not hesitate to use these” [“conjectural emendations based on the analogy of similar cases existing in the ‘repeated passages’”], and he gave as one case when the A. V. “inserts the words ‘and Ahaz’ into the text of 1 Chronicles 9:41 on the strength of chapter 8:35” (Foundation, p. 190). The word “garrisons” in italics at 1 Chronicles 18:6 may be supplied from 2 Samuel 8:6. Again the KJV translators in effect altered the Masoretic Text by adding "the first" in italics at 1 Chronicles 24:23 perhaps influenced by the example of the Latin Vulgate and 1 Chronicles 23:19 when these words were not in the Masoretic text. At 2 Chronicles 35:11 in the KJV, the Masoretic Text reading "sprinkled" is amended to "sprinkled the blood" in agreement with the LXX, Latin Vulgate, and Syriac Versions. The KJV put the Keri marginal reading [“into the middle court”] in the text at 2 Kings 20:4 and put the Masoretic textual reading in its 1611 marginal note: “or, city.“ At 2 Samuel 5:8, the clause “he shall be chief and captain” is added from 1 Chronicles 11:6. The words “his hand” at 2 Samuel 6:6 may be borrowed from 1 Chronicles 13:9. At 2 Samuel 8:3, the KJV "follows the Keri" [the marginal reading] instead of the textual reading of the Masoretic Text by inserting "Euphrates" (Ginsburg, Introduction, p. 310). Ginsburg maintained that the KJV followed the example of the Latin Vulgate by inserting "mine eye" at 1 Samuel 24:10 (p. 291). At 2 Samuel 8:4, the word “chariots” in “a thousand chariots” is likely added from 1 Chronicles 18:4. The added words in italics [“he lift up his spear”] at 2 Samuel 23:8 may come from 1 Chronicles 11:11. At Numbers 20:26, the words in italics [“unto his people”] may be added from Numbers 20:24. “Thorns” in italics at Judges 2:8 may be taken from Joshua 23:13.

Does this example of 1 Chronicles 6:28 demonstrate clearly that KJV defenders do not give the same latitude to the NKJV translators that they in effect give to the translators of the Geneva Bible and the KJV?

 

You fail to back up your stated position with sound evidence and proof. You keep making assertions that you do not prove to be true, and some of them are definitely not true.

It has already been soundly pointed out that the KJV does not give an English rendering for "all of God's precious words" preserved in the original languages. Sometimes one of the pre-1611 English Bibles gives an English rendering in their text which the KJV omits.

Here is a clear example that affirms my point. According to the KJV translators themselves, their Hebrew text at 2 Chronicles 29:25 has the Hebrew words for "by the hand of" even though they did not include them in their English text of the verse. The Geneva Bible and the Bishops' Bible include an English rendering "hand" for the Hebrew word for "hand."

Dave, according to your own assertion, does this mean that the KJV does not contain all the precious words of God in your language and that the KJV is guilty of what you accuse other English Bibles?

2 Chronicles 29:25

by the hand of his Prophets [1560 Geneva Bible]

through the hand of the Prophets [1602 Bishops’ Bible]

by his prophets [1611 KJV] [1611 margin—"Heb. by the hand of”]

by the hand of His prophets [YLT] [Literal Translation in Interlinear Bible]

Here is a second example.

Nehemiah 9:30

by the hand of thy Prophets [1560 Geneva Bible; 1602 Bishops’ Bible]

in thy Prophets [1611 KJV] [1611 margin—“Heb. in the hand of thy Prophets”]

by the hand of Thy prophets [YLT]