the NKJV based on same texts as KJV?

Logos1560 · Nov 22, 2006

Various KJV defenders and KJV-only authors have referred to the KJV as being a revision of Tyndale's and the other pre-1611 English Bibles. For example, Edward F. Hills affirmed that the KJV "is mainly a revision of the Bishops' Bible, which in turn was a slightly revised edition of Tyndale's Bible" (KJV DEFENDED, p. 215). David Cloud referred to the KJV as "another edition of Tyndale" (ROME AND THE BIBLE, p. 106). Cloud wrote: "Our Authorized English Bible is a direct descendant of Tyndale's faithful Version" (O TIMOTHY, Vol. 14, Issue 5, 1997, p. 10).

According to a consistent application of this reasoning that maintains that the KJV is a revision of Tyndale's and the other pre-1611 English Bibles, it can be accurately stated that in the same sense the NKJV is a revision of the KJV.

Just like the KJV is both a revision of the pre-1611 English Bibles and a translation of the original language texts, the NKJV is also both a revision of the KJV and a translation of the same original language texts.

There may be greater textual differences between Tyndale's and the KJV than any that can be claimed between the KJV and the NKJV. I can provide valid evidence to support these observations.

Can any valid evidence be offered by those who imply that all modern versions including the NKJV are not based on the same original language texts as the KJV?

Ed Edwards · Nov 22, 2006

Marking, in the rare event someone might actually respond???

I have no valid evidence as requested.

HankD · Nov 24, 2006

Logos1560 said:

Can any valid evidence be offered by those who imply that all modern versions including the NKJV are not based on the same original language texts as the KJV?
Click to expand...

This was an issue here on the BB a year or so ago (maybe longer than that).

After a debating bout, none could be found in the NT except that on occasion the NKJV would support an NIV or NASV English word in the English translation.

One person I remember did make a somewhat valid point that is admitted in the NKJV preface. I have a 1984 Edition which admits that the English text of the NKJV OT used is as follows

For the New King James Version the text used was the 1967/1977 Stuttgart Edition of Biblia Hebraica with frequent comparisons being made to the Bomberg Edition of 1524-25
Click to expand...

This was assumed as having been a massive departure from the Traditional Text of Ben Chayyim for the Ben Asher Text which was also assumed as having been "corrupted".

However, upon a challenge, no was able to find even one example when comparing the OT of the KJV with the NKJV for this supposed departure nor could they even provide a difference in these Hebrew texts (I suppose a critical apparatus could have been consulted).

I spent some time in research myself looking for such a difference (KJV/NKJV) but couldn't find one.

Perhaps there is, but where it is alludes me.

Here is another quote from the preface of the 1984 Edition of the NKJV:

In the few places where the Hebrew was so obscure that the 1611 King James was compelled to follow one of the versions (such as the LXX - my note) but where Hebrew textual information is now available to resolve these problems, the New King Version now follows the Hebrew text
Click to expand...

Again this is plainly admitted in the NKJV preface but with no references to these specific instances.

HankD

Keith M · Nov 24, 2006

It is very easy to accept the better availability of textual evidence in the latter half of the twentieth century than in the early seventeenth century. Even though there may have been miniscule textual variants, apparently there were no significant differences.

Another thing that is puzzling is the fact that many who support the Textus Receptus as the only valid compilation of manuscripts totally reject such TR-based versions as the MKJV, the KJ21, the KJ2000, the TMB, the AKJV, etc.

HankD · Nov 24, 2006

Keith M said:

It is very easy to accept the better availability of textual evidence in the latter half of the twentieth century than in the early seventeenth century. Even though there may have been miniscule textual variants, apparently there were no significant differences.

Another thing that is puzzling is the fact that many who support the Textus Receptus as the only valid compilation of manuscripts totally reject such TR-based versions as the MKJV, the KJ21, the KJ2000, the TMB, the AKJV, etc.
Click to expand...

personally I put most credence in the Scrivener TR (1894) which is the underlying text of the AV but don't disparage any text even a critical text as long as the Traditional Text is represented in the Critical Apparatus.

HankD

Logos1560 · Nov 24, 2006

Logos1560 said:

There may be greater textual differences between Tyndale's and the KJV than any that can be claimed between the KJV and the NKJV. I can provide valid evidence to support these observations.
Click to expand...

Here are some examples of the valid evidence that I said that I could provide. Tyndale's N. T., the 1535 Coverdale's Bible, and the 1537 Matthew's Bible do not have two whole verses found in the KJV [Mark 11:26 and Luke 17:36]. In addition, these pre-1611 English Bibles placed on the KJV-only view's own stream and line of good Bibles do not have phrases or clauses at Mark 15:3c, John 8:9b, John 8:59c, John 19:38c, James 4:6b, 1 John 2:23b, Revelation 18:23a, and Revelation 21:26 that are found in the KJV. The 1535 Coverdale's Bible and 1540 Great Bible have three whole verses in one Psalm that are not found in the KJV.

These examples are likely greater differences than any claimed differences between the KJV and the NKJV. Thus, KJV-only advocates seem to have no valid basis for leaving the NKJV off their line/stream of good Bibles from the same underlying texts.

EdSutton · Nov 25, 2006

HankD said:

personally I put most credence in the Scrivener TR (1894) which is the underlying text of the AV but don't disparage any text even a critical text as long as the Traditional Text is represented in the Critical Apparatus.

HankD
Click to expand...

I believe the TR1894 is a "reverse" TR, 'derived' from the KJV-1769 Edition. Hence, a Greek 'original' which is not even close to being that, but is an 'eclectic' text for one person's opinion of exactly what the text should have been, hence TR1894, and that having been translated from the Greek into English, and after two main revisions of some of the KJV, then 'reverse translated' back into the Greek language. It would be more accurate to say the AV underlies TR1894, than the way you said it, IMO.

Ed

HankD · Nov 26, 2006

EdSutton said:

I believe the TR1894 is a "reverse" TR, 'derived' from the KJV-1769 Edition. Hence, a Greek 'original' which is not even close to being that, but is an 'eclectic' text for one person's opinion of exactly what the text should have been, hence TR1894, and that having been translated from the Greek into English, and after two main revisions of some of the KJV, then 'reverse translated' back into the Greek language. It would be more accurate to say the AV underlies TR1894, than the way you said it, IMO.

Ed
Click to expand...

My understanding is that the AV translators chose from several Traditional Text Grk. mss creating a master archetype (of sorts).

Scrivener identified those mss as best he could. He did not "make up" any text from the AV English but extracted from the several Grk. texts using the ones that matched (as closely as possible) and knit them into one text.

In the preface of his work it states that the Beza 1598 TR is for the most part the underlying text of the 1611 AV and subsequently the majority text of the Scrivener 1894 TR.

Scrivener also used the last two editions of Stephanus with some references and choices from the several editions of Beza.

It is not a "back translation" but an eclectic text or a "quilt" aligned with the AV English if you will.

This is my understanding from the preface of the Grk. text itself and books such as A Textual History of the King James Bible by D. Norton, 2005.

It is the result of an almost 500 year refinement of Traditional Text scribal families and IMO represents the best NT Grk. Text available.

HankD

Logos1560 · Nov 30, 2006

Arthur Farstad, executive editor of the NKJV, wrote: “The text of the New King James Version itself is the traditional one used by Luther and Calvin, as well as by such Catholic scholars as Erasmus, who produced it. Later (1633) it was called the Textus Receptus, or ‘TR’” (NKJV in the Great Tradition, p. 111). In note 9, Farstad commented that “deeper reflection led us to adhere to the traditional King James text” (p. 116). Farstad quoted the following from the guidelines for the making of the NKJV: “the Traditional texts of the Greek and Hebrew will be used” (p. 34).

ehaase · Dec 2, 2006

http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/whatabout-nkjv.html

Ed Edwards · Dec 2, 2006

ehaase said:

http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/whatabout-nkjv.html
Click to expand...

All facets of David Clouds untruths about the nKJV have been
debunked on this board already. Please figure out how to use
SEARCH and spare us all the reruns. Thank you.

Personally I'm 63 years only and all the history of the nKJV and
the attack upon God's Holy Written Word /as found in the
New King James Version (nKJV) / - both were NEWS to me
as it happened.

Here is a short summary:

In the early/mid 1970s certain proto-KJVOs said that
if a translation was made using the Textus Receptus sources
then it might be alright.

Some ten full years after the full Bible was available iln
the nKJV -- some Bible Basher discovered that
the Publisher (read PRINTER) had used the Triquetra
symbol on the title page. So the nKJV was DAMNED as a
translation because of a non-translation misunderstood
symbol put on a non-Bible page by the publisher/printer.

If there were no double standard among the KJVOs, then
the KJV1611 Edition must be damned IN A LIKE MANNER for
having the Pagan god SOL INVICTUS (the sun) in the upper
left hand corner of the title page PUT THERE BY THE
PUBILSHER/PRINTER.

BTW, the Triquetra is an ancient Chraistian symbol of
the mystery of the Holy Trinity NOT an ancient Pagan
symbol (but is a modern Pagan symbol). So I'm still angry at
the Pagans for stealing one of our Symbols and angry
at the Bible Haters who condemn the Holy Bible, God's
Written Word in the form of the New King James Version (nKJV).

Logos1560 · Dec 2, 2006

David Cloud's claims about the NKJV are often inaccurate. I checked with Dr. James D. Price, executive editor of the NKJV's O. T., about one of Cloud's claims as seen in the following quote.

David Cloud wrote: "Dr. Price told me that the NKJV translators did not solely follow the Masoretic Hebrew text in the Old Testament of the NKJV but that they introduced textual changes. This is born out in the Preface to the NKJV, which says the New King James Bible modifies the Masoretic Hebrew with the Septuagint, the Latin Vulgate, 'a variety of ancient versions,' and the Dead Sea Scrolls" (BIBLE VERSION QUESTION/ANSWER DATABASE, p. 370).
>>

Below is Dr. Price's email to me about Cloud's claim in the above quote. Dr. Price wrote:

"That cannot be an accurate representation of our discussion, but his interpretation of what was said. I have never made such a statement because it misrepresents the facts. The NKJV was committed to the Textus Receptus for both the NT and OT. The Textus Receptus for the OT was Bomberg's 2nd edition of 1524-25 as represented by existing printed editions based on that text. The Bomberg text was derived from the Masoretic Text and differs from it only in minute details that affect translation in rare instances. The text of Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia 1967/1977 (BHS) is regarded the best representative printed edition of the Masoretic Text. Wherever Bomberg's 2nd edition differs from BHS, the NKJV followed Bomberg against BHS; this affected translation in only a handful of places, none of which affected fact or theology. It can be safely stated that the NKJV faithfully followed the OT Textus Receptus; and deviation from that statement must be the result of accident and not intention.

The preface of the NKJV does not say "the New King James Bible modifies the Masoretic Hebrew with the Septuagint, the Latin Vulgate, 'a variety of ancient versions,' and the Dead Sea Scrolls"; instead, it says the following:

"For the New King James Version the text used was the 1967/1977 Stuttgart edition of the Biblia Hebraica, with frequent comparison being made with the Bomberg edition of 1524-25. The Septuagint (Greek) Version of the Old Testament and the Latin Vulgate also were consulted. In addition to referring to a variety of ancient versions of the Hebrew Scriptures, the New King James draws on the resources of relevant manuscripts from the Dead Sea caves. In the few places where the Hebrew was so obscure that the 1611 King James was compelled to follow one of the versions, but where information is now available to resolve the problems, the New King James Version followed the Hebrew text. Significant variations are recorded in the footnotes."

Notice that the preface states that at times the 1611 (not the NKJV) followed the versions. This happened where the Hebrew text was obscure. Notice also that the NKJV followed the Hebrew text (not a version) when information is now available to resolve the problems the 1611 had. So the NKJV is closer to the Hebrew than the 1611 is. The NKJV followed a version only where the KJV 1611 was justified in doing so also. Notice also that significant variants were placed in the footnotes (without comment); they never affected translation.

Cloud twisted, distorted, and misrepresented the facts. I can't understand why people listen to him. You may share these comments with others; they are not copyrighted."

James D. Price

Ed Edwards · Dec 2, 2006

Here is the results of a Google search for
"David Cloud" NKJV domain=baptistboard.com

page 1:

BaptistBoard.com: Sodom and NKJV

[SIZE=-1]This is topic Sodom and NKJV in forum Bible Versions/Translations at ... [off topic comment snipped - David Cloud is not the subject of this thread] ...
www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=print_topic;f=4;t=002695 - 29k - Supplemental Result - Cached - Similar pages[/SIZE] the NKJV based on same texts as KJV? - BaptistBoard.com

[SIZE=-1]David Cloud referred to the KJV as "another edition of Tyndale" (ROME AND ... I have a 1984 Edition which admits that the English text of the NKJV OT used ...
www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?p=901751 - 66k - Cached - Similar pages[/SIZE]
Teen looking for the right Bible - BaptistBoard.com

[SIZE=-1]There are several good teen and young adult editions of the NKJV which I ... David Cloud is not a collaborator of Jack Chick's, He is a Brother in the Lord. ...
www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=2524 - 85k - Supplemental Result - Cached - Similar pages[/SIZE]
THE INSPIRATION AND TRANSLATION OF THE SCRIPTURE [Archive ...

[SIZE=-1]Yes, it's written by David Cloud--Ruckman is against David Cloud too! ... In this case, I would recommend using the NKJV as a modern English alternative, ...
www.baptistboard.com/archive/index.php/t-2503.html - 34k - Supplemental Result - Cached - Similar pages[/SIZE]
BaptistBoard.com: Post A Reply

[SIZE=-1]Stay away from any tracts or any material by Jack Chick or David Cloud. ... and I know International Bible Society sells that Gospel in KJV, NKJV, NIV, ...
www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=reply;f=9;t=000597;replyto=000000 - 57k - Supplemental Result - Cached - Similar pages[/SIZE]
Best Book to Defend the KJV [Archive] - BaptistBoard.com

[SIZE=-1]MerchantID=6749&ProductID=2540694) by David Cloud. ... True that I am a CT preferred but that does not mean down play bibles like the KJV, Geneva, and NKJV. ...
www.baptistboard.com/archive/index.php/t-29976.html - 80k - Supplemental Result - Cached - Similar pages[/SIZE]
If the KJV was updated what would you suggest? [Archive ...

[SIZE=-1]The NKJV was too much of a change for some of the most conservative types. ... David Cloud also listed Noah Webster as a defender of the KJV (FOR LOVE OF ...
www.baptistboard.com/archive/index.php/t-2659.html - 25k - Supplemental Result - Cached - Similar pages[/SIZE]
BaptistBoard.com: Post A Reply

[SIZE=-1]David Cloud defines what "KJVO" means. Waite defines what KJV "only" means. ... MKJV or NKJV, and in particular the KJV21, *atill* don't meet his criteria? ...
www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=reply;f=4;t=002487 - 42k - Supplemental Result - Cached - Similar pages[/SIZE]
BaptistBoard.com: What is fundamentalism ?

[SIZE=-1]... the KJV can be the perfect Word of God and for instance the NKJV is not? ... First of all, David Cloud is not a liar, and you are falsley accusing him. ...
www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=print_topic;f=3;t=002541 - 196k - Supplemental Result - Cached - Similar pages[/SIZE]
Is using the KJV compromise? - 2nd Attempt! - BaptistBoard.com

[SIZE=-1]David Cloud claimed: “In 1616 the king [James I] issued a command that only ... I have the NASB, NKJV and a few others but don't know when I've used them, ...
www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=2519 - 99k - Supplemental Result - Cached - Similar pages[/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1]

[/SIZE]

Ed Edwards · Dec 2, 2006

page 2:

What does it mean to you to be KJVO? [Archive] - BaptistBoard.com

[SIZE=-1][Archive] What does it mean to you to be KJVO? Bible Versions/Translations.
www.baptistboard.com/archive/index.php/t-2641.html - 206k - Supplemental Result - Cached - Similar pages[/SIZE] Hasn't the KJV been updated in thousands of Places? [Archive ...

[SIZE=-1]David Cloud noted that Waite’s Bible for Today reprinted Scrivener’s book ... It along with the NASB, NKJV, and several others I reference support the very ...
www.baptistboard.com/archive/index.php/t-2611.html - 75k - Supplemental Result - Cached - Similar pages[/SIZE]
What is the need for fundies to always talk about 'the movement ...

[SIZE=-1]I could quote the KJV, NIV, ESV, RSV, NKJV, TLV, NASB, etc...., and they all translate the Word of God from the Greek NT effectively and are all trustworthy ...
www.baptistboard.com/archive/index.php/t-15124.html - 102k - Supplemental Result -Cached - Similar pages[/SIZE]

Ed Edwards · Dec 2, 2006

David Cloud claim: //1. THE NEW KING JAMES VERSION (NKJV) IS A DECEPTION.//

In fact, it is David Cloud who is deceiving.
The nKJV follows the Textus Receptus sources
closer than 1. THE NEW KING JAMES VERSION (NKJV) IS A DECEPTION.. Both the nKJV and the KJVs follow
and document (with translator footnotes)
the sources available to them. The nKJV follows the Textus
Receptus sources closer than the KJVs do.

HankD · Dec 3, 2006

ehaase said:

http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/whatabout-nkjv.html
Click to expand...

At this site, in the first example as an NKJV "deception" the following is offered

KJV “Because STRAIT is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.”
NKJV “Because narrow is the gate and DIFFICULT is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it.”
The word “difficult” in the NKJV (and “narrow” in the KJV) is a translation of the Greek word “thilbo.” Strong’s Concordance defines it as “to crowd (literally or figuratively).” In the KJV, this Greek word is translated “afflict,” “narrow,” “throng,” “suffer tribulation,” “trouble.” When referring to a path, it means that one’s way is restricted. Regardless of what it could be translated in other passages, it is the context of a word that always defines its meaning, and the context of Matthew 7:14 is salvation. We know from other passages that salvation is not difficult. Jesus said that to be saved one must come as a child (Lk. 18:17), but if salvation were difficult, as the NKJV says, it would not be possible for a little child to be saved. The Bible describes salvation in terms of coming (Mat. 11:28), drinking (Jn. 4:10), eating, (Jn. 6:35), and taking a gift (14 times in N.T., Eph. 2:8-9). These are not difficult things.

Found in the public domain at
http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/whatabout-nkjv.html
Click to expand...

Actually, the first word in the passage, the word "strait" (AV Grk. stenos) is a somewhat archaic word whose precise meaning is "narrow" and is most often confused and written (or miswritten) in the 21st century as "straight". The second word in question in the passage (AV) is "narrow".
(Grk. thlibo) Strong's 2346

thlibo {thlee'-bo}

Meaning: 

1) to press (as grapes), press hard upon 2) a compressed way 2a) narrow straitened, contracted 3) metaph. to trouble, afflict, distress

Usage: 

AV - trouble 4, afflict 3, narrow 1, throng 1, suffer tribulation 1; 10

The emphasis is IMO upon the metaphorical to trouble, afflict, distress.

Specifically (again IMO) it is the "difficulty" in receiving and the acknowledgement of the reproval of personal sin in one's life.Such as:

Luke 13:24 Strive to enter in at the strait gate: for many, I say unto you, will seek to enter in, and shall not be able.

Luke 18
23 And when he heard this, he was very sorrowful: for he was very rich.
24 And when Jesus saw that he was very sorrowful, he said, How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God!

"How hardly" Grk.

duskolos Stong's 1423 : with difficulty.

Not that the ownership of riches are sin but greed is certainly sin.

Jesus words were designed to reveal by reproval that sin of greed and the rich man could not receive it, or as Jesus said "How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God!".

Jesus often made a "works" demand upon people to reveal the sin in their life.

NKJV Matthew 7:14 Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it.

IMO this is a proper translation considering the original language words and the immediate context.

HankD

ehaase · Dec 3, 2006

Ed Edwards said:

All facets of David Clouds untruths about the nKJV have been
debunked on this board already. Please figure out how to use
SEARCH and spare us all the reruns. Thank you.
Click to expand...

After your condescending response to me, I wonder why you found the need to list all of the posts about Bro. Cloud and the NKJV. [Personal attack on a BB member deleted]

Keith M · Dec 3, 2006

ehaase said:

After your condescending response to me, I wonder why you found the need to list all of the posts about Bro. Cloud and the NKJV. You certainly do not display a Christlike spirit.
Click to expand...

I beg to differ with your opinion, ehaase. Ed has repeatedly shown a Christ-like spirit. Christ always spoke out against the lies of the scribes and Pharisees. Ed speaks out about the untruths fostered by those such as Cloud. That is definitely a Christ-like spirit. We need more like Bro. Ed here at BB and less of those who promote false man-made myths.

Ed Edwards · Dec 3, 2006

ehaase said:

After your condescending response to me, I wonder why you found the need to list all of the posts about Bro. Cloud and the NKJV. You certainly do not display a Christlike spirit.
Click to expand...

Thank you for your analysis (formerly JUDGEMENT) of my personality.
I'll share it with my shrink :smilewinkgrin:

NaasPreacher (C4K) · Dec 4, 2006

Bro Ed is not the topic of this thread - shall we return to the topic at hand?

the NKJV based on same texts as KJV?

Logos1560 Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

Ed Edwards <img src=/Ed.gif>

HankD Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

Keith M New Member

HankD Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

Logos1560 Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

EdSutton New Member

HankD Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

Logos1560 Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

ehaase New Member

Ed Edwards <img src=/Ed.gif>

Logos1560 Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

Ed Edwards <img src=/Ed.gif>

Ed Edwards <img src=/Ed.gif>

Ed Edwards <img src=/Ed.gif>

HankD Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

ehaase New Member

Keith M New Member

Ed Edwards <img src=/Ed.gif>

NaasPreacher (C4K) Well-Known Member

Useful Searches

the NKJV based on same texts as KJV?

Logos1560 Well-Known Member Site Supporter

Ed Edwards <img src=/Ed.gif>

HankD Well-Known Member Site Supporter

Keith M New Member

HankD Well-Known Member Site Supporter

Logos1560 Well-Known Member Site Supporter

EdSutton New Member

HankD Well-Known Member Site Supporter

Logos1560 Well-Known Member Site Supporter

ehaase New Member

Ed Edwards <img src=/Ed.gif>

Logos1560 Well-Known Member Site Supporter

Ed Edwards <img src=/Ed.gif>

Ed Edwards <img src=/Ed.gif>

Ed Edwards <img src=/Ed.gif>

HankD Well-Known Member Site Supporter

ehaase New Member

Keith M New Member

Ed Edwards <img src=/Ed.gif>

NaasPreacher (C4K) Well-Known Member

Logos1560 Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

HankD Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

HankD Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

Logos1560 Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

HankD Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

Logos1560 Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

Logos1560 Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

HankD Well-Known Member
Site Supporter