1611 KJV only and anger

It is a consistent application of KJV-only reasoning that implies that God failed to preserve the actual original language words that He gave the prophets and apostles without corruption. It is KJV-only claims that in effect deny the authority of the preserved Scriptures in the original languages. A KJV-only theory undermines the very original language foundation from which the KJV was translated and the very pre-1611 English Bibles of which the KJV was a revision. A KJV-only theory implies that God waited until 1611 to keep His promise to preserve the Scriptures.

 

And where are those originals?

 

This false accusation against the NKJV was likely based on someone counting the number of times that "God" is listed in a concordance for the KJV and the number of times that "God" is listed in a concordance for the NKJV and subtracting them. The incorrect assumption was made that every time that the KJV has "God" that there was the Hebrew or Greek word that meant God. There was no comparison to the original language texts from which the KJV and the NKJV were translated.

Along with her inconsistent attack on other translations for not using the name "Jehovah," Riplinger claimed in her tract that the "NKJV omits the word ‘God’ 51 times” (Church Bus News, April-June, 1996, p. 26). This inaccurate claim seems to be based on a simple comparison of the NKJV to the KJV and not on a comparison to the preserved Scriptures in the original languages. This count likely does not take into consideration the times where the KJV added the word “God” in italics. In response to this misleading charge, James D. Price noted:

The truth is that the KJV added the word "God" in
fifty one or more places where the Hebrew or Greek
text did not contain it--and that without using italics
in most cases. This was because the KJV used
dynamic equivalence paraphrases such as "God
forbid," "God save the king," or "God speed"
instead of a more literal expression in good English.
In all these places the NKJV made the KJV more
literal and more faithful to the Hebrew and Greek
texts without undermining the place of God in
the Bible (False Witness, p. 4).

Price then discussed these times and proved the faithfulness of the NKJV to the Hebrew and Greek texts underlying the KJV.


Jack Lewis maintained that “the phrases ‘God forbid’ (1 Sam. 14:45; etc.) and ‘would God’ (Num. 11:29) add the word ‘God’ to the text” (English Bible, p. 44). In the introduction to his translation, Noah Webster noted that the phrase God forbid was used several times in the KJV "without any authority from the original languages for the name of God" (p. ix). The KJV has “God forbid” eight times in the O. T. and fifteen times in the N. T. D. A. Waite acknowledged that the Greek for the KJV's "God forbid" would be literally translated as "may it not be" (Foes, p. 96). David Cloud described this example as “’a little something like’ that which is called dynamic equivalency today” (Bible Version Question/Answer, p. 157). William Grady asserted that “occasionally” the KJV translators “even had the ‘audacity’ to insert an English idiom, with no manuscript authority whatsoever, such as the phrase ‘God forbid’” (Given by Inspiration, p. 44). David Daniell indicated that Luther’s German Bible has “das sey ferne (be that far away)“ instead of “God forbid” (William Tyndale, p. 142). Concerning “God forbid” at 1 Corinthians 6:15, A. T. Robertson noted: “The word “God’ is not here” (Word Pictures, IV, p. 106). At Acts 10:14, Tyndale's and Matthew's Bibles have "God forbid" while the KJV has "Not so." At Acts 11:8, Tyndale's, Matthew's, Whittingham's, and Geneva Bibles have "God forbid" while the KJV again has "Not so." At 2 Samuel 20:20, the Geneva and Bishops’ Bibles have “God forbid” twice while the KJV has “Far be it” twice. This verse has the same Hebrew word twice that the KJV rendered “God forbid” several other times. At 1 Samuel 20:9, the 1560 Geneva’s rendering [“God keep it from thee”] and the Bishops’ rendering [“God keep that from thee”] were revised in the KJV [“Far be it from thee”]. Would Riplinger and other KJV-only advocates claim that the KJV omitted the name of God at these verses?

Were the KJV translators always faithful to their underlying texts and always consistent in following the renderings of the earlier English Bibles? Instead of keeping the rendering of the earlier Bibles, the KJV translators corrected the addition of the word "God" in several of the them at 1 Kings 1:31. (See second appendix). At Nehemiah 2:3, Coverdale’s and Matthew’s have a rendering with the name of God [“God save the king’s life for ever”] and the Geneva and Bishops’ have a similar rendering [“God save the king for ever”]. The KJV does not add the name of God at this verse [“let the king live for ever”]. At Daniel 2:4, Coverdale’s, Matthew’s, and Bishops’ Bible have the name of “God” [“O king, God save thy life for ever”] where the Geneva and KJV does not. Coverdale’s and Matthew’s also have a similar rendering at the following verses (Dan. 3:9, 5:10, 6:6, 6:21).

In their marginal notes in the 1611 KJV, the KJV translators acknowledged that the literal meaning of the Hebrew at 1 Samuel 10:24, 2 Samuel 16:16, 2 Kings 11:12, and 2 Chronicles 23:11 was "let the king live" and at 1 Kings 1:25 "let king Adonijah live." Perhaps because of their note at verse 25, the KJV translators did not include this marginal note at 1 Kings 1:34 and 39 where it reads "God save King Solomon." The Geneva Bible translators also had marginal notes giving the literal meaning of the Hebrew at 1 Samuel 10:24, 2 Samuel 16:16, and 1 Kings 1:25. God's Word in the Hebrew does not contain the word "God" nor the word "save" in these verses. The KJV translators translated the same Hebrew word used here as "live" many times. Why didn't the KJV translators put the literal meaning of the Hebrew in the text rather than in the margin? Why did they correct the same rendering in the earlier English Bibles at other verses while keeping them at some? The 1853 Leeser's, 1917 Holy Scriptures According to the Masoretic Text, and 1985 TANAKH all have "Long live the king" as the translation of the Hebrew at 1 Samuel 10:24, 2 Samuel 16:16, 2 Kings 11:12, and 2 Chronicles 23:11. It is clearly incorrect to claim that modern translations are omitting "God" in these verses.

Not applying his own question to the KJV, Waite asked: "Is it 'needed' to add the Name of God when the Name of Deity is not in the Hebrew or Greek texts? I do not believe that it is" (Foes, p. 19). On this same page, Waite also wrote: “They are adding God’s name when God’s name is not in the Hebrew. Is that dynamic equivalence ’needed?’ Is that necessary or needful to add God’s name when God is not there? No, this is an error.” According to a consistent application of Waite’s own statements, is it an error when the KJV added the name of God when it was not in the original languages? Kirk DiVietro claimed: "The King James/TR defenders do not ask the new bibles to enter anything into their translations that is not in the original texts" (Anything But the KJB, p. 58). However, the evidence clearly indicates that many KJV defenders do in effect ask or demand that translators put words into their translations that are not in the preserved Scriptures in the original languages. Did KJV-only advocates in effect demand that God alter His Word in Heaven to match some edition of the KJV?

 

The preserved Scriptures in the original languages existed before 1611, and they still exist today. The printed original language texts from which the KJV translators still exist.

God's promises concerning preservation of the Scriptures concerned the actual words given to the prophets and apostles by inspiration of God. Those words were in the original languages, not in English. There is no verse in the Bible that states or suggests that preservation was transferred in 1611 to different words than the ones that God gave to the prophets and apostles by the miracle of inspiration.

The KJV translators themselves maintained that the preserved Scriptures in the original languages are the standard and authority for trying translations, which would include their own translation.

 

Its too bad Mr. Chick isn't here to defend himself...I wonder what he would say about you.. seriously though?.. I give you some credible evidence and all you can do is come back with a Monty Python joke..

http://www.1timothy4-13.com/files/bible/nkjv.html ..try this one too..but never mind...this guy is a liar too

 

pagan symbols in the 1611 KJV

Your source is wrong. The NKJV symbol likely put there by the publisher was earlier used in an edition of the KJV as a symbol for the Trinity of the Bible. I have seen that edition of the KJV that was printed before the NKJV was made. Because others have used a similar symbol to meant something different is not grounds for the accusation against the NKJV.

In addition, a consistent application of the reasoning in this accusation would condemn the 1611 edition of the KJV because of the pagan symbols printed in it.

John Eadie affirmed that the printers of the 1611 used some of “the same head pieces, woodcuts, and other embellishments, which had appeared in the Bishops’” (English Bible, II, p. 291). In the initial letter for Matthew 1 and Revelation 1, the 1611 KJV has an illustration with the Roman god Neptune with sea horses. Eadie noted that “the figure of Neptune with his trident and horses, which appears so often in the Bishops’, stands at the beginning of Matthew” (p. 291). H. W. Hoare noted that the figure “of Neptune with his trident and horses was borrowed from the Bishops’ Bible” (Evolution, pp. 274-275). William Loftie affirmed that “the figure of Neptune, which in the largests of the Bishops’ was made frequently available, now headed the gospel of St. Matthew” [in the 1611] (Century of Bibles, p. 6). At Psalm 141 and 1 Peter 3, the 1611’s initial letter has a figure of the Greek god Pan. At Romans 1, the 1611’s initial letter has a naked, sprouting nymph Daphne. These can be seen in the large 1611 digital reproduction by Greyden Press and in the 2010 reprint of the 1611 by Oxford University Press, but the 1611 reprints in Roman type published by Thomas Nelson or Hendrickson Publishers do not have them. Norton has a page of illustrations that includes the above three initials from the 1611 in his book, and he asserted that it is unlikely that the KJV translators approved of their use (Textual History, pp. 51-52).

Brake noted that the 1611’s initial letter at Hebrews 1 is a “demonic face with bat wings” (p. 178). Brake also pointed out that the 1611’s initial letter at 2 Corinthians 1, Galatians 1, Philippians 1, 2 Thessalonians 1, Philemon 1, and 1 Peter 1 is “two demons depicted with horns and pitchforks” (p. 179). At the bottom of the title page of the 1611 KJV, Geddes MacGregor observed that it has “a traditional symbol of the redeeming work of Christ, especially in the Eucharist--a pelican ‘vulning’ herself, that is, wounding herself with her beak to feed her young with her own blood” (Literary History, p. 205). Vance noted that “the engraved title page depicts the Trinity in the upper panel in the form of the Divine Name, a dove, and a lamb” (King James, His Bible, p. 55). The 1611 KJV edition referred to the signs of the Zodiac in its calendar: “Sol in Aquario” (p. xvii), “Sol in Piscibus” (p. xviii), “Sol in Aries” (p. xix), “Sol in Tauro” (p. xx), “Sol in Gemini” (p. xxi), etc.

 

Interesting in this long diatribe that when you quoted my response you left out the link...

http://www.1timothy4-13.com/files/bible/nkjv.html

..for those who missed it..does some good comparisons between the two 'versions..seems to be a devilish cloud over the types of changes that were made..anyone that has a copy of each one feel free to do your own comparison and not rely on any of us to tell you what truth is..

 

Mark, you're wasting your time trying to reconvert the converted. You really can't throw up anything we haven't seen before, and that hasn't been proven a lie or at best a half truth at least a dozen times.

 

Better yet, compare both to the Greek and Hebrew and be astounded that either translation is as good as it is.:smilewinkgrin:

 

The above reasoning is wrong. The fact that the NKJV may have the same rendering as some of those listed translations is not evidence that the NKJV was translated from other Hebrew and Greek texts. Along with his unproven KJV-only assumptions and bias, your source jumped to wrong conclusions and made incorrect accusations. By a consistent application of the faulty reasoning above, it could be asserted that the KJV was translated from the Latin Vulgate since it has many renderings the same as those in the Roman Catholic Douay-Rheims Bible. The KJV translators actually made use of the 1582 Roman Catholic Rheims New Testament, changing some words in the pre-1611 English Bibles to the words in the Rheims.

KJV-only author William Bradley wrote: “Every word change in the text of the New King James Version was taken directly from the text that produced the Revised Standard Version, the New International Version, and all the other so-called bibles, the minority text of Westcott and Hort” (Purified Seven Times, pp. 121-122). Mickey Carter asserted: ‘Even the slightest changes in the King James Version, including the New King James Version, came from the polluted ‘stream’” (Things that are Different, p. 171).

It can be proven that such KJV-only accusations are misleading, inaccurate, and often completely false. I have compared the 1560 Geneva Bible, the KJV, and the NKJV and have found many pages of examples where the NKJV differs from the KJV but is the same as the 1560 Geneva Bible. KJV-only advocates assert that the 1560 Geneva Bible is translated from the same original language texts as the KJV and yet there are the same type differences in it as those found in the NKJV.

 

Fair enough.(on the reconverting line)..but really..my contention is and has been all along that their is absolutely no need for any of these bible versions..where is the line drawn?...how do we deal with a JW...How do we deal with a Mormon..they think they have inspired works dont they?..this is absurd..you say (and others here in the thread I suppose) that these KJV apologists have been proven wrong..am I to take your word for it?..I disagree...I do think, and this is the gist of my argument, that Satan has a very real plan to convert true churches to apostate...do you deny this?..how is he to do that?..by weakening doctrine perhaps?..how does he do that...where do we get our doctrine from?...are we all naive enough to think that he will not attack these main tenants of our faith by CHANGING AND MODERNIZING the Blessed old Book?...how is the one world church going to come into being..well I maintain its happening right before our eyes..I must admit..the level of intellect on this thread is amazing..I do wish I was able to articulate at a higher level..but good Lord...the kings english was fine and I believe God has stamped His approval on the KJV...we do not need anything else..the difference between the NKJV and the KJV are telling..doctrinal changes are subtle but they are there..the slippery slope will be even more overt as the years approach..Westcott and Hort started it all
http://www.chick.com/reading/books/157/157_08a.asp
http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/hort.htm
These guys had no business or authority to do what they did...they are considered the 'father' of all modern versions...the scripture is very clear about who is able to handle the 'Holy Things'..look what has happened as a result of these two apostates...shameful...and yet learned men of God have rubber stamped their work for too long...this is absurd..

 

You lost me with the first sentence man..you want to throw mud on all versions saying none of them are perfect well then you are saying God is not able to do what he says he will do..Can I trust my Bible?

 

That is not what I said. God was able and is able to do what He says and that is what He did. As already noted, preservation concerned the exact original language words that was given to the prophets and apostles. I believe in the preservation of the Scriptures in the original languages. On the other hand, your modern KJV-only theory is not stated nor taught in the Scriptures.

It is the KJV-only view that implies that God did not do what He said before 1611 and only starting doing it in 1611.

 

According to a consistent application of your reasoning, there would seem to have been no need for another English translation in 1611 since English-speaking believers already had a good English Bible that they loved, accepted, and read [the 1560 Geneva Bible].

Are you aware of the fact that some believers including Baptists asserted in the 1600's that the KJV introduced changes to the English Bible that were made to promote Church of England Episcopal church government views?

 

There you go, you have shown what this is really all about, FAITH. Those who attack the KJB are really attacking faith. They inspire doubt. They not only believe the KJB is full of error and cannot be trusted, they say the same of the MVs as well. They will claim the original texts were perfect, but those were lost centuries ago. If one believes these critics, they would have to believe God did not keep his promise and preserve his perfect word.

Call KJOs heretics if you like, but we have FAITH, we completely trust our Bible, you trust no scripture.

You don't see any NIVO or ESVO "cults" as these critics try to disparage us. Why? because the MVs do not inspire faith, they inspire DOUBT.

And faith is pretty important to God, without faith it is impossible to please God (Heb 11:6).

 

I would like proof of this statement. I go to a church that uses primarily the ESV. We have approximately 2500 members. People are saved and baptized regularly. We support both SBC and independent missionaries. And you're telling me we have no faith??

It is statements like these, on BOTH sides of the aisle, that must make God sick.

He is much bigger than the KJV. The world is much bigger than the KJV. There are billions dying and going to hell who don't have a Bible, much less a KJV, and all we can do is sit around and play this, "My Bible is better than your Bible" game.

If it's so good, START USING IT AND LIVING IT. If our Bible versions are wrong then leave it up to the Lord and the Holy Spirit to show us that. That's HIS job. He is the "Spirit of truth". And He and I get along fine as I read and study my ESV as well as my KJV, my NIRV, and my NIV.

You don't like that- TOUGH!!!

...now back to your regularly scheduled time-wasting, flesh feeding sniping...

 

This is false and you know it, the original texts do not exist, we rely upon copies. The original texts penned by the apostles were lost long ago.

So, we must rely upon God's promise of preservation or we have nothing.

These "original texts" you claim are only reliable do not exist and you know it.

 

You misunderstand me. Those who promote the MVs inspire doubt. Anybody can come to this forum any time and see the debates between the MVs themselves, each arguing their version is superior, but often admitting it has many shortcomings as well.

Ask any person if their NIV or ESV is perfect, they will all say NO. But ask many who use the KJB if their Bible is perfect, and many will say YES!

Why is it that KJBs have this supreme confidence and faith in their Bible that others lack?

Ponder that for awhile.

 

And as far as attacking your version, I didn't start this thread.

And who is getting angry? Not me.