Featured Why isn't the NKJV seen as being another update on KJV?

"Some"?

Is that "some" as in your "at least a few"?

Or "some" as in Robycop's "boatload"?

Or "some" as in MNJacob's "not a ton"

Or "some" as in C4K's "several"?

 

One scholar's count of those textual marginal notes was already given earlier in this thread. The actual number could possibly be disputed because of the fact that the KJV translators do not seem to have been consistent in using any certain term to indicate which marginal notes were textual and which were only alternative renderings. Some of the marginal notes beginning with "Or" may actually be textual marginal notes.

Scrivener noted that 4,111 of the 6,637 marginal notes in the Old Testament of the 1611 "express the more literal meaning of the original Hebrew or Chaldee" and "2156 give alternative renderings (indicated by the word 'Or' prefixed to them) which in the opinion of the Translators are not very less probable than those in the text" (Authorized Edition, p. 41). He also pointed out that 67 marginal notes in the 1611 O. T. "refer to various readings of the original, in 31 of which the marginal variation (technically called Keri) of the Masoretic revisers of the Hebrew is set in competition with the reading in the text" (Ibid.). He observed that in the N. T. of the 1611 that 37 marginal notes relate to various readings (p. 56).

 

So is that a "few" or a "boatload"?

 

AS to the first - My copy of the 1611 has lots of marginal notes/footnotes, as well as words that do not appear in any form in the Greek (most now in italics in later printings).

Second - As I have posted on other threads - Biblical Languages - at the time of the writing OF the texts - was the language of the people, especially the koine Greek of the NT - it was the literal "vernacular" of the time.

In my EXTREME hypothetical scenario - if the Bible were being written today (I don't mean the rewrites of a handful of extremely liberal revisionists) - what would it look like? Would the Lord be inspiring it to be recorded in King James English? After all, English is the closest thing this world has to a "universal language". Or would it more mirror "conversational English" as you here every day?

So - for the purpose of trying to squash archaic words - the NKJV does a fair job - but makes some rather odd choices about what to and what not to replace. It also still leaves in some odd phraseology that makes things confusing or even misleading if not taken in context (of course, isn't context one of the biggest failings of many Bible expositors, preachers, and teachers?).

 

Todays English?

Translate the scriptures into TODAYS ENGLISH??? May God have mercy on us. We're libael to wind up with a new translation copyrighted by one of the cellphone companies!!!

Imagine if you will the "Verizon Today's Text Message Bible" version or something like that.....have mercy.

Even so Lord...come quickly!

Bro.Gregraying:

 

You seem to mock at the ideal that the Scriptures should be in the current language of the common people. Do you oppose have the Scriptures translated into current understandable English?

In their 1611 preface, the KJV translators asserted: "But we desire that the Scripture may speak like itself, as in the language of Canaan, that it may be understood even of the very vulgar."

 

LOL! You are too much GPS. You are headed in the wrong direction (pun intended.)

If the Word of God is being widely distributed you need to praise the Lord for it;not the other way around.