1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Featured Why do you think that by Sowing Changes to the Meanings in God's Word, has Reaped such a Harvest?

Discussion in 'Bible Versions & Translations' started by Alan Gross, Dec 23, 2023.

  1. 37818

    37818 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2018
    Messages:
    16,312
    Likes Received:
    1,258
    Faith:
    Baptist
    The researcher and his website, I lost it. Naverone (spelling?) or something like that.

    I tried a Google image search to find it.
     
    #21 37818, Jan 25, 2024
    Last edited: Jan 25, 2024
  2. Logos1560

    Logos1560 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    6,254
    Likes Received:
    422
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Concerning John 10:16, Burlington Wale asserted: “The ecclesiastical bent of the translators of the Authorised Version shows itself here as elsewhere” (Biblical Outlines, Vol. I, p. 218). F. B. Meyer maintained that “there is no doubt that the King James translators yielded to their ecclesiastical bias when they said, ‘There is one fold and one shepherd’” (Howard, Sunday-Schools the World Around, p. 177).

    At this verse in the KJV, two different Greek words are translated "fold" which removes the clear distinction between them. Were there any important, essential, or necessary reasons why one English word was used to translate these two different Greek words?

    A. T. Robertson pointed out the distinction here by Jesus between aule (fold) and poimne (flock) (Word Pictures, V, p. 181). Concerning John 10:16, J. B. Lightfoot observed: "The point of our Lord's teaching depends mainly on the distinction between the many folds and the one flock" (The Revision, p. 73). William Tyndale kept this difference of meaning between the two Greek words by translating the second Greek word (poimne) as "flock," as it is also translated in Jay Green's Interlinear Greek-English New Testament and Berry's Interlinear Greek-English New Testament. Arthur Farstad in his Logos 21 Version of the Gospel of John also translated this second Greek word as "flock" (Living Water, p. 37). The 1535 Coverdale’s Bible and 1537 Matthew’s Bible also have “flock” in agreement with Tyndale. The KJV translators themselves translated poimne as "flock" at Matthew 26:31, Luke 2:8, and 1 Corinthians 9:7. The KJV translators also translated another form of this word poimnion as “flock” at Luke 12:32, Acts 20:28, 29, and 1 Peter 5:2, 3. The old Syriac Peshitta, which is on the KJV-only line of good Bibles, also distinguished between the two Greek words. Thus, Murdock’s English translation of the Peshitta has “one flock” at the end of John 10:16. The Old Latin also distinguished between the two Greek words with its translation unus grex (one flock) for the second word. Luther’s 1534 German Bible distinguished between the two Greek words, using Stalle for aule and Herd or Herde for poimne. The 1657 English translation of the authorized Dutch Bible also has “one flock” in agreement with Tyndale’s and Luther‘s.


    In their tract entitled “A Corrected English Version Needed for the Heathen,“ Spencer Cone and William Wyckoff asserted that “the learned monarch’s translators rejected this rendering [Tyndale’s] of the original, and adopted one made from the Vulgate Latin, which has ovile fold, for both Greek words“ (p. 2). A writer in the Primitive Church Magazine asserted: “Tyndale and Coverdale translated John 10:16, ‘There shall be one flock, and one shepherd,‘ correctly rendering the Greek; but in the great Bible, or Cranmer’s, as it is often called, the reviser, following the vulgate Latin, put ‘one fold and one shepherd,‘ thus introducing ‘an inaccurate rendering, which continued through several revisions” (Vol. IX, June, 1852, p. 169). David Brown cited or quoted the following: “It is worth remarking that in this Bible (referring to Great Bible) one serious mistranslation is introduced which Tyndale had avoided” … “the rendering ‘fold’ in lieu of ‘flock’ in John 10:16” (Indestructible Book, p. 317). Henry Craik maintained that the KJV translators “ought to have restored the correct rendering given by Tyndale” at John 10:16 (Hints, p. 42).

    Bullinger's Lexicon defined poimne as "a flock," and it noted that in the KJV at John 10:16 "it is wrongly rendered 'fold'" (p. 291). John Wesley commented: “There shall be one flock (Not one fold)“ (Explanatory Notes, p. 244). Melancthon Jacobus wrote: “The term here rendered fold, means flock, and is altogether different from the term rendered ‘fold’ in the context” (Notes on the Gospels: John, p. 183). Ralph Earle maintained that poimne “means ‘flock’” (Word Meanings, p. 89). Concerning this verse in his commentary on John, Oliver B. Greene maintained that “the Greek reads ‘one flock’” (II, p. 133). In his commentary on John, J. Vernon McGee noted: “It is really ‘flock’ (poimne), not ‘fold’ (aule) in this second phrase” (I, p. 164). In its note for this verse, the Ryrie Study Bible has “fold--better, flock” (p. 1607). A. C. Gaebelein asserted that “the Authorized Version is incorrect in using the word ‘fold’” (Annotated Bible, VI, p. 215). In his commentary on the Gospel of John, Arno Clemens Gaebelein wrote: “The authorized version states ‘one fold,’ but this is a serious mistake. Not one fold, but one flock, not an exclusive enclosure of an outward church—but one flock, all knowing the one Shepherd, and known of Him” (p. 185). In a sermon, John Harding stated: “There shall be one flock is the correct translation, not one fold” (Church of England Magazine, Vol. 70, 1871, p. 387).
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  3. Alan Gross

    Alan Gross Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2018
    Messages:
    5,549
    Likes Received:
    454
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Question: did you have an axe to grind in any of these?

    Were you trying to make a point of some nature?

    #3: Why do you think that by Sowing Changes to the Meanings in God's Word, has Reaped such a Harvest?

    #4: Why do you think that by Sowing Changes to the Meanings in God's Word, has Reaped such a Harvest?

    #5: Why do you think that by Sowing Changes to the Meanings in God's Word, has Reaped such a Harvest?

    #8: Why do you think that by Sowing Changes to the Meanings in God's Word, has Reaped such a Harvest?

    #9: Why do you think that by Sowing Changes to the Meanings in God's Word, has Reaped such a Harvest?

    #10: Why do you think that by Sowing Changes to the Meanings in God's Word, has Reaped such a Harvest?

    #11: Why do you think that by Sowing Changes to the Meanings in God's Word, has Reaped such a Harvest?

    #12: Why do you think that by Sowing Changes to the Meanings in God's Word, has Reaped such a Harvest?

    #22: Why do you think that by Sowing Changes to the Meanings in God's Word, has Reaped such a Harvest?
    ...

    Looks like the broad brush you paint all "KJV-onlies" with
    involves an "exclusive-only claims for the KJV".

    So, I don't have "exclusive-only claims for the KJV."

    What do you do now?

    Now, I'm no longer a KJV-only to you?

    Good.

    What exactly happens to be my "KJV-only bias or blinders"?

     
  4. Alan Gross

    Alan Gross Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2018
    Messages:
    5,549
    Likes Received:
    454
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Is this question for Ruckmanites?

    I've never heard the statement,
    "things that are different are not the same".

    To say, "things that are different are not the same",
    "to possibly suggest
    that the KJV is a different Bible
    then the preserved Scriptures in the original languages"
    ,

    is dependent on what is called "different",
    as compared to what things are involved in the modern versions
    that could be determined to be "different".

    You, Logos, have documented 1,000s of "differences", in the KJ versions.
    "things that are different are not the same".
    To what extent?

    The underlying Original Language Manuscripts
    for the modern versions were SWITCHED OUT and REPLACED.

    Did you know that?

    Have you, Logos, documented any "differences",
    in the underlying Original Language Manuscripts versions?
    "things that are different are not the same".
    To what extent?


    "this typical KJV-only slogan that they use
    to condemn other English Bibles"

    There are numerous valid objections
    that have been made to
    "condemn other English Bibles".

    I raised several highly pertinent concerns,

    A.) each of which is strategic to the generation of inexplicable
    and unaccountable differences between the
    "modern versions"
    and the previous seven English versions,


    When are issues like these going to be addressed?

    Such as A1.) thru A6.), below?, from the O.P.?

    A1.) "versions which were the result of initiating
    the highly suspect intention of translating new copies of the Bible,
    "as if it were any other book",

    A2.) "using highly suspect original text manuscripts,"

    A3.) "by highly suspect translators,"

    A4.) "and employing highly suspect philosophies of translation,"

    A5.) "and methods of determining and settling changes in the wording,"

    A6.) "with the resulting end product being,
    what Helena Petrovna Blavatsky,
    the editor of, "LUCIFER", "A Theosophical Magazine",
    was very happy to say that we finally had,

    "the very Word of God, in truth"(?)

    And when will B.), be addressed?

    B.) how the modern version's alterations, omissions, and reshapings
    are migrating ever closer and similar to their sister translations*,
    The New World Translation and The Douay-Rheims Bible, etc.

    *from the same manuscripts.


    below from: H.P. Blavatsky said, "we have the Bible in true in Codex Sinaiticus (א) and Codex Vaticanus (B)"

    The statements below, in pink, indicate
    the plans of these particular individuals
    who intended to produce a version of the Bible to replace The KJV.






    Then, there are:






    con't
     
  5. Alan Gross

    Alan Gross Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2018
    Messages:
    5,549
    Likes Received:
    454
    Faith:
    Baptist



















     
  6. Logos1560

    Logos1560 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    6,254
    Likes Received:
    422
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Your claim is a misleading broad-sweeping generalization that is not true concerning all post-1611 English Bible translations.

    There are several present English Bible translations that are based on the same multiple, varying original language manuscripts and multiple printed original-language texts as the KJV is. Therefore, those English Bibles have not actually switched out and replaced the KJV's underlying original language manuscripts as your statement incorrectly alleges.

    The KJV itself does not follow 100% or completely any one Hebrew OT manuscript or any one printed Hebrew text edition. The KJV itself does not follow 100% or completely any one Greek NT manuscript or any one printed Greek Textus Receptus edition printed before 1611. Textual criticism decisions were involved in the making of the KJV.
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  7. Logos1560

    Logos1560 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    6,254
    Likes Received:
    422
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Clear evidence of the composite nature of the Byzantine Greek NT manuscripts can be seen in the Greek NT manuscripts used by textual critic Robert Estienne or Stephanus (1503-1559) as he edited some TR text editions.

    The first two editions [1546 and 1549] of Stephanus' Greek New Testament were a compound of the earlier editions by Erasmus and the earlier Complutensian Polyglot. His third edition (1550) is considered to be an important one. The edition of Smith’s Dictionary of the Bible edited by H. B. Hackett asserted that “numerous instances occur in which Robert Stephens deserts his former text and all his MSS to restore an Erasmian reading” (III, p. 2132). KJV-only advocate Laurence Vance noted: "The third edition in 1550 had the distinction of being the first Greek New Testament with a critical apparatus and was the standard text in England until the time of the Revised Version" (Brief History of the English Bible Translations, p. 12). Doug Stauffer wrote: “His 1550 edition was the first Greek New Testament with the critical apparatus providing the variant readings and symbols to indicate manuscript evidence” (One Book One Authority, p. 587). KJV-only author Tim Fellure asserted that Stephanus “is generally regarded as the first true textual critic” (Neither Jot nor Tittle, p. 130).

    KJV defender Edward F. Hills observed that Stephanus "placed in the margin of his 3rd edition of the Textus Receptus variant readings taken from 15 manuscripts, which he indicated by Greek numbers" (KJV Defended, p. 117). F. H. A. Scrivener indicated that Robert Stephanus in his preface stated that his sources were sixteen, but that includes the printed Complutensian as one of them (Plain Introduction, II, p. 189). Samuel Tregelles confirmed that “the various readings in the margin are from the Complutensian printed edition and from fifteen MSS” (Account, p. 30).

    Brian Walton observed that Stephanus “reckons sixteen Greek copies, which he collated, and out of them noted 2384 various readings, which he though fit to put in the margin of his edition” (Todd, Memoirs, II, p. 132). Edwin Bissell maintained that “in the edition of 1550, indeed, the first collection of variations in manuscripts was actually published, numbering two thousand one hundred and ninety-four” (Historic Origin, p. 128). Samuel Tregelles affirmed that in Stephanus' 1550 folio edition "Erasmus was almost exclusively followed" (Account of the Printed Text, p. 30). Samuel Tregelles suggested: “The collation of MSS. had probably been made with Erasmus’s fifth edition, and thus Stephens in his principal edition used it as the basis of his text” (Ibid.). Charles E. Hammond claimed: “The influence of prescription already shows itself in the fact that Stephens often follows the text of Erasmus, in defiance of the authority of his manuscripts” (Outlines of Textual Criticism, p. 11). Herbert Marsh asserted that “in the margin of this [1550] edition there are more than a hundred places, in which he [Stephens] has quoted all his authorities for readings different from his own” (Course of Lectures, p. 106). F. H. A. Scrivener as edited by Edward Miller maintained that Stephanus’ text of the 1550 edition “is perpetually at variance with the majority” of his fifteen Greek manuscripts and the Complutensian, “and in 119 places with them all” (Plain Introduction to the Criticism, Vol. II, p. 190). Robert B. Waltz cited “Scrivener’s report that there are 119 places where all of Stephen’s manuscripts read against the TR, but Stephens still chose to print the rendering in previous TR editions” (Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism, p. 855). The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Reformation noted that "through its [Erasmus's Greek text] being incorporated into the third edition of Robert Estienne's Greek Testament (1550) it influenced strongly the Greek Testament of Theodore de Beza" (Vol. 2, p. 57). Scrivener noted that his “own collation represents Stephen’s first edition as differing from his third in 797 places, of which 372 only are real various readings, the rest relating to accents, or being mere errata” (Plain Introduction, II, p. 190, footnote 3).
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  8. Logos1560

    Logos1560 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    6,254
    Likes Received:
    422
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Did Erasmus’ Greek manuscripts have any of the readings that he added to his Greek text by translating from an edition of the Latin Vulgate of Jerome? Are textual differences involving whole verses or entire clauses very slight, minor, meaningless, and insignificant?

    The Greek NT manuscripts that underlie the varying TR editions differ in whether or not they include the following whole verses: Mark 11:26, Luke 17:36, Acts 8:37, 1 John 5:7. Scrivener maintained that Acts 15:34 is omitted by several manuscripts including over fifty cursives and that “Erasmus inserted it in his editions from the margin of Codex 4” (Introduction, Vol. II, p. 373). Some other significant differences in TR editions are found involving clauses and phrases at Mark 15:3c, John 8:6c, John 8:9b, John 8:59c, John 19:38c, James 4:6b, 1 John 2:23b, Revelation 5:11b, Revelation 18:23a, and Revelation 21:26.

    In the 1550 Greek text edition by Stephanus, over 2,000 differences are indicated in the textual marginal notes from only fifteen Greek manuscripts and the printed Complutensian edition.

    KJV defender Edward F. Hills maintained that the Textus Receptus editions of Erasmus and Stephanus and the “majority of the Greek manuscripts” have their purification at Luke 2:22 (KJV Defended, p. 221). Many of the Greek NT manuscripts that underlie the TR editions and several TR editions have the reading his father at Luke 2:33. In the case of Luke 10:22, an edition of Stephanus has a reading [“and turning to his disciples he said”] followed in the 1560 Geneva Bible that Backus reported where Beza “remarks that the phrase appears in many ancient MSS” although he omits it from his text (Reformed Roots, p. 85). Edward F. Hills declared that “Erasmus, Stephanus 1 2 3 omit this verse [Luke 17:36] with the majority of Greek manuscripts” (Believing Bible Study, p. 208). At the beginning of John 14:1, Erasmus’ text has a reading (“And he said unto his disciples”) that is not found in Beza. Concerning 1 Timothy 1:4, Edward F. Hills asserted that Stephanus and “majority of Greek manuscripts” read dispensation of God while Erasmus, Beza, and KJV read godly edifying (KJV Defended, p. 222). At Hebrews 9:1, Edward F. Hill claimed that Stephanus “reads first tabernacle, with the majority of the Greek manuscripts,” and that the KJV “omits tabernacle and regards covenant as implied” (Believing Bible Study, p. 209). One reading followed in the KJV at Revelation 17:8 (and yet is, instead of, and shall come) is said by Edward F. Hills to be an “uncorrected printer’s error in Erasmus” (p. 83). Edward F. Hills wrote: “Here the reading kaiper estin (and yet is) seems to be a misprint for kai paresti (and is at hand), which is the reading of Code 1r, the manuscript Erasmus used in Revelation” (KJV Defended, p. 202). Jan Krans referred to this reading at Revelation 17:8 as “one of the Erasamian blunders” (Beyond what is Written, p. 54, footnote 6). Concerning Revelation 22:19, Doug Kutilek claimed: “All Greek manuscripts read ‘tree of life;’ not a single one reads ‘book of life’” (Erasmus, His Greek Text, p. 3). Doug Kutilek asserted: "The fact that all textus receptus editions of Stephanus, Beza, et al. read with Erasmus shows that their texts were more or less slavish reprints of Erasmus' text and not independently compiled editions, for had they been edited independently of Erasmus, they would surely have followed the Greek manuscripts here and read 'tree of life'" (Westcott & Hort vs. Textus Receptus, p. 3).

    There are more than a few variants in the Greek NT manuscripts underlying the varying Received Text editions, and they are not often noted in the margin of the KJV. There were also textual conjectures introduced into the varying TR editions along with some errors introduced by the printers.
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  9. Logos1560

    Logos1560 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    6,254
    Likes Received:
    422
    Faith:
    Baptist

    Phil Stringer, a moderate KJV-only author who is not a follower of Peter Ruckman, asserted: “Things that are different are not the same” (Unbroken Bible, p. 210).

    Textus Receptus defender Jim Taylor wrote: “Things that are different are not the same and we would be academically dishonest to assert that the King James Version and the Textus Receptus were a perfect match when they really aren’t” (In Defense of the Textus Receptus: God's Preserved Word to Every Generation, p. 72).

    Mickey Carter asserted: “Things that are different are not the same. Bibles that are different are not the same” (Things That Are Different, p. 77).

    Mickey Carter wrote: "God has not given us a Bible, unless we have it in the King James Version. The other versions are different, and things that are different are not the same" (Things That Are Different Are Not the Same, p. 196).

    KJV-only author John C. Phillips wrote: “The word same means identical, not different or other” (King James Contender, May, 1980, p. 2).

    Jack Hyles asserted: “Two things that don’t agree cannot both be right” (Need for an Every-Word Bible, p. 23). Jack Hyles claimed: “If two books do not contain the same words, one of them cannot contain the words of God” (p. 16).
     
    • Winner Winner x 2
    • Informative Informative x 1
  10. Logos1560

    Logos1560 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    6,254
    Likes Received:
    422
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Since the front cover of Mickey Carter's book with the title THINGS THAT ARE DIFFERENT ARE NOT THE SAME has been in ads in several fundamentalist or Baptist publications and since that statement has been mentioned a number of times at this forum, I wonder how you could have never heard or read it.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  11. Conan

    Conan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2019
    Messages:
    1,868
    Likes Received:
    315
    Faith:
    Baptist
    KJVOnlyist used to repeat the phrase as vain repetition like a mantra.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  12. Alan Gross

    Alan Gross Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2018
    Messages:
    5,549
    Likes Received:
    454
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I wondered why you chose to be in opposition to it, as your Life's Work,
    until it dawned on me, "what could be the simplest thing on Earth
    that anyone could ever keep themselves busy doing their whole life long?"

    Simple, when I thought about it.

    Nothing to it, whatsoever.

    A snap.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  13. Logos1560

    Logos1560 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    6,254
    Likes Received:
    422
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I am not in opposition to the KJV if that it is what you incorrectly try to suggest. If that is what you are claiming, you bear false witness in disobedience to a clear command of God. You avoid discussing what I actually say.

    I read the KJV, love the KJV, and defend the KJV as what it actually is. The KJV is the word of God translated into English in the same sense (univocally) as the pre-1611 English Bibles are the word of God translated into English and in the same sense (univocally) as some post-1611 English Bibles such as the NKJV are the word of God translated into English.

    What I soundly and scripturally oppose is human, non-scriptural, false KJV-only doctrine, which is not taught in the KJV and which is not at all the same thing as the KJV itself.
     
    • Winner Winner x 4
  14. Alan Gross

    Alan Gross Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2018
    Messages:
    5,549
    Likes Received:
    454
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I could never imagined that you weren't against the KJV,
    all the way around the barn.

    I thought you worked for the modern version crowd.

    Given that you are saying that is not the case, then unfortunately something
    has motivated an entire lifetime worth of neverending posts
    of demonstrably anti-KJVOnly info-facts, which appear to be death to KJV
    at all costs type material. That's how it comes off.

    Like you've got a "Kill the KJV Hammer" and any mention of the KJV
    being something that exists somewhere that someone might consult
    is a NAIL.

    You may not think you are being anti-KJV, just because everything "KJV"
    looks like "KJVOnly" to you, in practice it seems.

    I am with you and agree and that is what I believe, even though you constantly say I am biased and blinded by my KJVOnlism.

    Until, you got to "such as the NKJV".

    My issue with the NKJV is identical to the first doppelganger in writing
    that was published, whose name could be interchangable with it,
    although both names could be seen to be world-class hypnotically forged lies.

    "The New"? As if it is in some way related or associated with the "Old"?

    The Old King James? Not in my book. The NKJV has gone to great lengths
    to stake a claim on being similar to the KJV, up to even stealing it's name.

    Nope.

    Neither was the "Prior New King James Version".

    The one that could have been the name for the NKJV,
    if it hadn't already been used.

    How about the NKJV being called "The New Pretend Revised Version"?

    The Revised Version was a New Composition based on underlying
    original language manuscripts that were put in place, after the initial
    manuscripts used by the previous English version translations were dismissed.

    It tried to pull off the duplicitous façade of being a "King James Revision".

    For all it was worth. One of the Greatest Crimes Ever Committed.

    Ditto, the duplicitous façade incongruously oxymoronically entitled NKJV.

    You may think and tell me it was based on the same manuscripts as KJV.

    Not buying it for a second.

    The world has believed that initial lie, but just like with their two deceitful names,
    The RV and The NKJV, neither of which is a revision of the KJV, or a "New" one.

    Correct. Amen. They are a Blight upon the Land.
     
  15. Logos1560

    Logos1560 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    6,254
    Likes Received:
    422
    Faith:
    Baptist
    You thought incorrectly. Some of your comments suggest that you have not read and understood my clear posts since you repeatedly try to misrepresent and distort what I have stated into things that I did not state.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  16. Logos1560

    Logos1560 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    6,254
    Likes Received:
    422
    Faith:
    Baptist
    The NKJV is accurately and soundly related and associated with the old KJV since the NKJV is both a revision of the KJV and a translation of the KJV's underlying texts in the same sense (univocally) as the KJV is both a revision of the pre-1611 English Bibles and a translation of their underlying texts. The truth remains that the NKJV is properly related and associated with the KJV since it is a revision of it.

    The KJV did not have the name King James Version when it was first printed. The KJV had the title "the Holy Bible" taken from the title of pre-1611 English Bibles. It would be called King James' translation or version by some in order to distinguish it from the other English Bibles.

    There is no actual lie in their use of the name NKJV just as there is no lie in the use of the name "authorized version" for the KJV when the KJV is a revision of the first authorized version of the state Church of England [the Great Bible], a revision of an authorized version in Scotland [the Geneva Bible] and a revision of a second authorized version of the state Church of England [the Bishops' Bible]. The first rule for the making of the KJV was that "the ordinary Bible read in the [state] church, commonly called the Bishops' Bible, to be followed, and as little altered as the truth of the original will permit." The KJV is not the first and only authorized version and yet it is often called "the authorized version" especially in Great Britain. Would you suggest that the KJV stole that name "authorized version"?

    The "New" distinguishes the NKJV as being a different English Bible than the KJV just as the "New" in New American Standard Bible distinguished it as being a different English Bible than the "American Standard Version".

    You bear false witness against the NKJV translators with your bogus accusations against the NKJV. The truth remains that the NKJV is a revision of the KJV in the same sense as the KJV is a revision of several pre-1611 English Bible regardless of your denial of it.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  17. Alan Gross

    Alan Gross Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2018
    Messages:
    5,549
    Likes Received:
    454
    Faith:
    Baptist
    So, you got something against bearing false witness, or what's up?

    Well, thus behold, alas! You've got over 6,000 posts.

    Maybe you can find a pro-KJV comment from one of them you can quote.

    :(
     
  18. Alan Gross

    Alan Gross Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2018
    Messages:
    5,549
    Likes Received:
    454
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Man alive, I called that one. Amazing.

    "NKJV" Critique, in relation to accuracy, etc.

    No more, and perhaps less than the first fake "revision".

    Dunno how you'd remain in that stance.

    You may not be into it but these articles give a fair "NKJV" run down.

    "NKJV" review part #1.

    "NKJV" review part #2.

    Negative on bearing false,
    as much as I'm begining to like being accused of that three times a day.

    Typical defence of anything else against The Holy Bible.

    A Billion souls have been saved through it over 400 years
    and yes, it was called The Holy Bible, or The Bible, by most of them.

    You better like it.
     
    #38 Alan Gross, Feb 3, 2024
    Last edited: Feb 3, 2024
  19. Logos1560

    Logos1560 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    6,254
    Likes Received:
    422
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Your assertion is not true. The NKJV is not the same as the 1881 Revised Version whose New Testament was translated from Westcott and Hort's Greek text. The NKJV is not a "fake" revision as you falsely allege.

    The NKJV is a true, genuine revision of the KJV and is a translation of the KJV's underlying original languages texts.

    KJV defender David Norris acknowledged that the NKJV can “be classed largely as a revision rather than a retranslation” (Big Picture, p. 367). KJV defender David Sorenson admitted that the NKJV’s N. T. “is translated from the Textus Receptus” (Touch Not, p. 240). David Sorenson also listed the NKJV as being “based upon the Received Text” (p. 10). Laurence Vance acknowledged that the NKJV’s “New Testament was based on the Received Text” (Brief History, p. 92). KJV-only author Samuel Gipp acknowledged that the NKJV “is based on the correct Antiochian manuscripts” (Answer Book, p. 104). Wilbur Pickering maintained that “the King James Version (AV) and the New King James Version (NKJV) reflect a form of the text based upon the many later MSS” (Identity of the NT Text II, p. 1; Identity of the NT Text IV, p. 2). KJV-only author Jack McElroy admitted that the “NKJV is translated from the same Greek New Testament and virtually the same Hebrew Old Testament as the 1611 King James Bible” (Which Bible Would Jesus Use, p. 135). Charles Surrett, who is biased toward the KJV, indicated that at least “72 times” the KJV’s underlying Greek New Testament text supported the NKJV’s renderings in the book of Romans over the KJV’s renderings (Certainty of the Words, p. 123).

    In his list of formal equivalent translations, William Einwechter included the NKJV along with the KJV, and he noted that the NKJV is “based on the TR” (English Bible Translations, pp. 17, 29). Kerby Fannin listed the NKJV and MKJV as being “based on the Received Text” (While Men Slept, pp. 469-470). Michael Sproul referred to “the fact that the NKJV is translated from the same Greek text as the original KJV” (God’s Word Preserved, p. 39, footnote 51). J. G. Vos as revised by M. L. Strauss noted: “The primary distinction of the NKJV is its textual basis, utilizing the Textus Receptus, the edition of the Greek NT behind the KJV” (Zondervan Encyclopedia of the Bible, Vol. 5, p. 1007). Gary Zeolla affirmed that the NKJV is “based on the same Greek text as the KJV, the TR” (Differences between Bible Versions, pp. 20, 66). Gary Zeolla suggested that “the KJV and NKJV attempt to translate the original text as word for word as possible” (p. 61). Zeolla asserted that “the NKJV is highly readable and is extremely accurate” (p. 68). Gary Zeolla maintained that the NKJV “is every bit as faithful to the original text as the KJV, even more so at times” (p. 242). Gregory Tyree listed the NKJV and the KJV as literal translations of the Majority text family (Does It Really Matter, p. 77). In the introduction to the Eastern/Greek Oxthodox Bible, Laurent Cleenewerck maintained that the NKJV is “based on the Textus Receptus and follows the formal-equivalency approach and general style of the KJV” (p. 17). Norman Geisler and William Nix observed: “The diligent efforts by the revisers of The New King James Version to produce an English Bible that retains as much of the classic King James Version as possible while at the same time bringing its English up-to-date has been achieved to a great degree” (General Introduction to the Bible, p. 599). Alec Gilmore described the NKJV as “little more than a language update” (Dictionary, p. 119). William Paul claimed that “the NKJV is virtually the King James Version, only without the 17th century archaic word forms” (English Language Bible, p. 80). William D. Mounce described the NKJV as the “American revision” of the KJV (Greek for the Rest of Us, p. 264). TR defender Jim Taylor listed the NKJV as a revision of the KJV (In Defense of the TR, p. 101).

    In the editor’s preface of John Maxwell’s commentary on Deuteronomy in The Communicator’s Commentary, Lloyd J. Ogilvie maintained that the NKJV “combines with integrity the beauty of language, underlying Hebrew and Greek textual basis, and thought-flow of the 1611 King James Version, while replacing obsolete verb forms and other archaisms with everyday contemporary counterparts for greater readability” (p. 10). In The Inspirational Study Bible [NKJV edition], Max Lucado asserted: “The New King James Version preserves the precise scholarship of the original King James Version while updating the literary form of the text” (p. v). Max Lucado added: “The NKJV is a dependable version of the classic text in language that makes sense for today’s readers” (Ibid.). Ron Rhodes wrote: “The New King James Version (NKJV) is a revision of the King James Version (KJV) in modern English” (Complete Guide, p. 113). Ron Rhodes added: “The NKJV significantly updates the KJV, making it a much more accurate translation” (p. 114). Evangelist Estus Pirkle wrote: “In my opinion, the New King James Version is the greatest English translation that is available today to English readers. It is based on the same Hebrew and Greek texts (Textus Receptus) used by the 1611 KJV translators” (The 1611 KJB, p. 177). Wilbur Pickering asserted: “Until such a time as a good translation of the Majority Text becomes available, the best current English version of the NT is the NKJV—an excellent translation of a good Greek text” (Identity of NT Text II, p. 183). The special committee on Bible Versions for the Baptist Missionary Association Theological Seminary reported that the NKJV “seems to be as faithful to the Hebrew and Greek texts as the earlier versions” (bmats.edu/about-us/bible-versions).

    Jack Lewis, a supporter of the Critical Text, claimed that “the NKJV is a deliberate effort to turn the processes of scholarship back to the state of textual knowledge prior to the influence of Westcott-Hort” (English Bible, p. 333).
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  20. Logos1560

    Logos1560 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    6,254
    Likes Received:
    422
    Faith:
    Baptist
    In many places where the NKJV differs from the KJV, it is in agreement with the 1560 Geneva Bible, one of the pre-1611 English Bibles of which the KJV is a revision.

    Acts 1:3 presented (Geneva, NKJV) shewed (KJV)
    Acts 1:3 that he had suffered (Geneva) his passion (KJV) His suffering (NKJV)
    Acts 1:4 he commanded (Geneva) commanded (KJV) He commanded (NKJV)
    Acts 1:4 but to wait (Geneva, NKJV) but wait (KJV)
    Acts 1:19 their own language (Geneva, NKJV) their proper tongue (KJV)
    Acts 1:20 charge (Geneva) bishopric (KJV) office (NKJV)
    Acts 1:22 be made (Geneva) be ordained (KJV) become (NKJV)
    Acts 1:23 presented (Geneva) appointed (KJV) proposed (NKJV)
    Acts 1:28 on Matthias (Geneva, NKJV) upon Matthias (KJV)
    Acts 2:8 language (Geneva, NKJV) tongue (KJV)
    Acts 2:13 They are full (Geneva, NKJV) These men are full (KJV)
    Acts 2:15 since it is (Geneva, NKJV) seeing it is (KJV)
    Acts 2:25 David saith (Geneva) David speaketh (KJV) David says (NKJV)
    Acts 2:34 sit at (Geneva, NKJV) sit thou on (KJV)
    Acts 3:12 So when Peter (Geneva, NKJV) And when Peter (KJV)
    Acts 3:12 or godliness (Geneva, NKJV) or holiness (KJV)
    Acts 3:17 I know (Geneva, NKJV) I wot (KJV)
    Acts 3:18 thus fulfilled (Geneva, NKJV) so fulfilled (KJV)
    Acts 3:23 shall be (Geneva, NKJV) shall come to pass (KJV)
    Acts 3:25 to Abraham (Geneva, NKJV) unto Abraham (KJV)
    Acts 3:26 your iniquities (Geneva, NKJV) his iniquities (KJV)
    Acts 4:2 in Jesus Name (Geneva) through Jesus (KJV) in Jesus (NKJV)
    Acts 4:18 So they (Geneva, NKJV) And they (KJV)
    Acts 4:28 to do (Geneva, NKJV) For to do (KJV)
    Acts 5:16 were all healed (Geneva, NKJV) were healed every one (KJV)
    Acts 5:21 all the elders (Geneva, NKJV) all the senate (KJV)
    Acts 5:35 Men of Israel (Geneva, NKJV) Ye men of Israel (KJV)
    Acts 5:41 So they (Geneva, NKJV) And they (KJV)
    Acts 6:11 against Moses and God (Geneva, NKJV) against Moses and against God (KJV)
    Acts 7:6 But God (Geneva, NKJV) And God (KJV)
    Acts 7:11 famine (Geneva, NKJV) dearth (KJV)
    Acts 7:17 near (Geneva, NKJV) nigh (KJV)
    Acts 7:20 acceptable unto God (Geneva) exceeding fair (KJV) well pleasing to God (NKJV)
    Acts 7:25 that God (Geneva, NKJV) how that God (KJV)
    Acts 7:38 congregation (Geneva, NKJV) church (KJV)
    Acts 7:40 know not (Geneva) wot not (KJV) do not know (NKJV)
    Acts 8:1 to his death (Geneva, NKJV) unto his death (KJV)
    Acts 8:7 with a loud (Geneva, NKJV) with loud (KJV)
    Acts 8:23 For I see (Geneva, NKJV) For I perceive (KJV)
    Acts 8:27 to worship (Geneva, NKJV) for to worship (KJV)
    Acts 9:8 from the ground (Geneva, NKJV) from the earth (KJV)
    Acts 9:9 ate nor drank (Geneva, NKJV) did eat nor drink (KJV)
    Acts 9:16 how many things (Geneva, NKJV) how great things (KJV)
    Acts 9:22 the Christ (Geneva, NKJV) very Christ (KJV)
    Acts 9:25 through the wall (Geneva, NKJV) by the wall (KJV)
    Acts 9:38 near (Geneva, NKJV) nigh (KJV)
    Acts 10:2 household (Geneva, NKJV) house (KJV)
    Acts 10:9 near (Geneva, NKJV) nigh (KJV)
    Acts 11:1 Now the (Geneva, NKJV) And the (KJV)
    Acts 11:25 to seek (Geneva, NKJV) for to seek (KJV)
    Acts 11:26 first called Christians (Geneva, NKJV) called Christians first (KJV)
    Acts 11:28 famine (Geneva, NKJV) dearth (KJV)
    Acts 12:4 the passover (Geneva, NKJV) Easter (KJV)
    Acts 12:9 knew not (Geneva) wist not (KJV) did not know (KJV)
    Acts 13:10 straight ways (Geneva, NKJV) right ways (KJV)
    Acts 13:16 hearken (Geneva) give audience (KJV) listen (KJV)
    Acts 13:20 about four (Geneva, NKJV) about the space of four (KJV)
    Acts 13:22 will do (Geneva, NKJV) shall fulfill (KJV)
    Acts 13:35 wilt not (Geneva) shalt no (KJV) will not (NKJV)
    Acts 13:36 with his fathers (Geneva, NKJV) unto his fathers (KJV)
     
    • Like Like x 1
Loading...