# NKJV/KJV Issues



## larryjf (Oct 19, 2008)

One of the issues that i have come back to from time to time is why is the KJV better than the NKJV. Rev. Winzer has helped me in this area a few times, and i would now like to point out what i consider to be some interesting differences in translation.

The NKJV weakens God's sovereignty in this verse.

And *they* gathered them together to the place called in Hebrew, Armageddon. (Rev 16:16, NKJV)

And *he* gathered them together into a place called in the Hebrew tongue Armageddon. (Rev 16:16, KJV)

_______________________________________________________________

The NKJV forgets about Joshua and Caleb in this verse.

For who, having heard, rebelled? Indeed, *was it not all* who came out of Egypt, led by Moses? (Heb 3:16, NKJV)

For some, when they had heard, did provoke: howbeit *not all* that came out of Egypt by Moses. (Heb 3:16, KJV)

_______________________________________________________________

The NKJV makes us think that it's a problem with our personal relationship with Christ when we seek justification by the law, while the KJV tells us that it's Christ having no effect unto them.

*You have become estranged from Christ*, you who attempt to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace. (Gal 5:4, NKJV)

*Christ is become of no effect unto you*, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace. (Gal 5:4, KJV)

_______________________________________________________________

The NKJV rendering would lead us to believe that those following Jesus were starving instead of fasting...the difference being in religious motivation.

Now Jesus called His disciples to Himself and said, "I have compassion on the multitude, because they have now continued with Me three days and have nothing to eat. And I do not want to send them away *hungry*, lest they faint on the way." (Mat 15:32, NKJV)

Then Jesus called his disciples unto him, and said, I have compassion on the multitude, because they continue with me now three days, and have nothing to eat: and I will not send them away *fasting*, lest they faint in the way. (Mat 15:32, KJV)


----------



## InevitablyReformed (Oct 19, 2008)

This is why as soon as I become less busy (several research papers are getting most of my attention) I am going to teach myself (and seek help from my pastor) Biblical Greek. 

It is the only way to defeat KJV-onlyism...


----------



## Quickened (Oct 19, 2008)

I never really looked into differences between the translations. Interesting post. Are there any good threads discussing this topic in more detail?


----------



## larryjf (Oct 19, 2008)

InevitablyReformed said:


> This is why as soon as I become less busy (several research papers are getting most of my attention) I am going to teach myself (and seek help from my pastor) Biblical Greek.
> 
> It is the only way to defeat KJV-onlyism...



I doubt that you will find (m)any KJV-onlyists on the puritanboard. There's a big difference between believing that the KJV is the best English Bible compared to being the only Bible that can be used.

I think it's interesting that you want to study Greek to defeat KJVOism. I would think it a healthier attitude to study something to find the truth. Are you going into your studies already knowing what you want your conclusion to look like?


----------



## Grymir (Oct 19, 2008)

Yes, we (I) prefer to call ourselves Real KJV Users.

You don't need Biblical Greek to take down the Riplinger/Ruckman types.

Larry, I like your OP, especially the hungry/fasting comparison. That's what is with the NKJV. The NIV changes are blatant, but with the NKJV, a little hear and a little there. When I've compaired them, it's like somebody tried to update the language using the KJV as the original, instead of using the Greek.

(Yes, us real KJV uses know that the KJV isn't an autographa. But it was let down from heaven on a golden cord by God.  Btw, that's a joke incase there are any newcomers into the fray. After all, if it was good enough for the Apostle Paul, it's good enough for me!)


----------



## MW (Oct 19, 2008)

InevitablyReformed said:


> This is why as soon as I become less busy (several research papers are getting most of my attention) I am going to teach myself (and seek help from my pastor) Biblical Greek.
> 
> It is the only way to defeat KJV-onlyism...



Would that all the Lord's people read Hebrew and Greek, but they don't, and even those who do read them are still reliant on uninspired grmmars, lexicons, etc. If the Lord's people are bound to a translation then they should be referred to the one that most accurately renders the Word of God as originally given.


----------



## InevitablyReformed (Oct 19, 2008)

larryjf said:


> InevitablyReformed said:
> 
> 
> > This is why as soon as I become less busy (several research papers are getting most of my attention) I am going to teach myself (and seek help from my pastor) Biblical Greek.
> ...



Wow brother, 

Did you catch the wink at the end?

It seems that humor doesn't work so well on the internet.

It seems to me that all of these quarrels over English translations would be advanced if our knowlege of Greek was improved. Then again, maybe not. 

Don't mind me, didn't mean to upset you. 

And I certainly pray that I don't go "into my studies already knowing what you want my conclusion to look like."


----------



## larryjf (Oct 19, 2008)

InevitablyReformed said:


> Wow brother,
> 
> Did you catch the wink at the end?
> 
> ...



I wasn't sure how much of a joke it was. There seemed to be some grain of truth in the statement.

Do you think that an increased knowledge in Greek will lead you away from the KJV?


----------



## Grymir (Oct 19, 2008)

Daniel, Sorry. You have no idea how many times that same thing comes up with the newer people on the board. They see us real KJV users, and lump us into the KJV-Only crowd.


----------



## InevitablyReformed (Oct 19, 2008)

larryjf said:


> InevitablyReformed said:
> 
> 
> > Wow brother,
> ...



I hope that an increased knowledge in Greek leads to a better understanding of God's Word. If an increased knowledge in Greek leads me _to the KJV, well, praise God._


----------



## InevitablyReformed (Oct 19, 2008)

Grymir said:


> Daniel, Sorry. You have no idea how many times that same thing comes up with the newer people on the board. They see us real KJV users, and lump us into the KJV-Only crowd.



Hey, no problem on this end. My wife tells me I am too sarcastic sometimes and she's right (I've only been married for about two years so I still haven't figured out that my wife has me figured out). 

For now, have a good night.


----------



## larryjf (Oct 19, 2008)

InevitablyReformed said:


> larryjf said:
> 
> 
> > InevitablyReformed said:
> ...



It will definitely lead you to a better understanding...as will Hebrew.

To be honest i love 2 English versions: KJV and ESV.


----------



## Grymir (Oct 19, 2008)

Actually, I'm kicking myself for not picking up on it. I should of known better, because nobody takes KJV-Onlyism seriously. Thanks and good night to you too. And God bless you and your family too!


----------



## Galatians220 (Oct 20, 2008)

Check out this verse in any/all available translations:

Genesis 15:1 (KJV) - "After these things the word of the LORD came unto Abram in a vision, saying, Fear not, Abram: I _am_ thy shield, _and _thy exceeding great reward."

Virtually all other modernized translations render the end of that verse, "thy reward shall be great" or something like that. I humby submit that the KJV rendering (and the 1599 Geneva, another TR-based translation) alludes to the coming covenant, to the Messiah, to God's Fatherhood of us, to our inclusion in the heavenly kingdom, etc., etc. *It is a beautiful thought and a beautiful verse.* Simply to say, "your reward will be very great" is to have God playing a guessing game, in effect, with Abram. What will He give him? Lands? Children? Riches? All materialism! *No: something infinitely better* in His only begotten Son (BTW, check out John 1:12-14 in the KJV and other versions...), dying the death we deserved, God in the flesh, with God the Spirit to indwell His children.

Dr. Hills, Dean Burgon, Dr. Theodore Letis, etc. all made their points quite eloquently: the KJV and other TR-faithful versions are for Reformed people, not just fundy Baptists!

Margaret


----------



## Stomata leontôn (Oct 20, 2008)

Galatians220 said:


> ...*It is a beautiful thought and a beautiful verse.* Simply to say, "your reward will be very great" is to have God playing a guessing game, in effect, with Abram. What will He give him? Lands? Children? Riches? All materialism! *No: something infinitely better* in His only begotten Son (BTW, check out John 1:12-14 in the KJV and other versions...), dying the death we deserved, God in the flesh, with God the Spirit to indwell His children.
> 
> Dr. Hills, Dean Burgon, Dr. Theodore Letis, etc. all made their points quite eloquently: the KJV and other TR-faithful versions are for Reformed people, not just fundy Baptists!
> 
> Margaret


Versions like the Geneva and KJV (very close sisters) each give not only a painstakingly accurate translation, but the bonus of awe and fear of the Lord. When I read from them, not only am I picking up the meaning of the passage, but I am instantly put into a mind of worship of the Lord God Almighty.

In this day of ten-second commercials, impatient drivers, and fast food, I like to slow down and savor the Word. I like to read something that is not addressed to me first, but invokes foremost something greater than myself.

It's not about me; it's about God.


----------



## JBaldwin (Oct 20, 2008)

Galatians220 said:


> Check out this verse in any/all available translations:
> 
> Genesis 15:1 (KJV) - "After these things the word of the LORD came unto Abram in a vision, saying, Fear not, Abram: I _am_ thy shield, _and _thy exceeding great reward."
> 
> ...



That's an interesting point, Margaret, but I noticed that NIV (my_ least _favorite translation) renders Gen 15:1 it similar to the KJV "I am your shielf, your very great reward" while my favorite translation ESV renders it "your reward shall be great" I looked it up in several translations, and even checked out two french Bibles that are TR based, and most of them including the French Bibles rendered it "Your reward shall be great." (et ta récompense sera très grande.) In fact, there were more translations that rendered it "your reward shall be great". That makes me want to immediately want to go the Hebrew to see what it does say.


My point is that translations, even those that are TR-based, don't always agree. It would seem to me that the since God has blessed us with so many good translations in English, we should take advantage of that in our study.


----------



## JohnGill (Oct 20, 2008)

*Not just the NKJV*

Hebrews 3:16

NIV: Who were they who heard and rebelled? *Were they not all those* Moses led out of Egypt?

ESV: For who were those who heard and yet rebelled? *Was it not all those* who left Egypt led by Moses?

RSV: Who were they that heard and yet were rebellious? *Was it not all those* who left Egypt under the leadership of Moses?

NASB: For who provoked Him when they had heard? Indeed,* did not all those* who came out of Egypt led by Moses?

HCSB: For who heard and rebelled? *Wasn't it really all* who came out of Egypt under Moses?

Revelation 16:16

NIV: Then *they* gathered the kings together to the place that in Hebrew is called Armageddon.

ESV: And *they* assembled them at the place that in Hebrew is called Armageddon.

RSV: And *they* assembled them at the place which is called in Hebrew Armaged'don.

NASB: And *they* gathered them together to the place which in Hebrew is called Har-Magedon.

HCSB: So *they* assembled them at the place called in Hebrew Armagedon.

Galatians 5:4

NIV: You who are trying to be justified by law have been *alienated* from Christ; you have fallen away from grace.

ESV: You are *severed* from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace.

RSV: You are *severed* from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace.

NASB: You have been *severed* from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace.

HCSB: You who are trying to be justified by the law are *alienated* from Christ; you have fallen from grace!

Matthew 15:32

NIV: Jesus called his disciples to him and said, "I have compassion for these people; they have already been with me three days and have nothing to eat. I do not want to send them away *hungry*, or they may collapse on the way."

ESV: Then Jesus called his disciples to him and said, I have compassion on the crowd because they have been with me now three days and have nothing to eat. And I am unwilling to send them away *hungry*, lest they faint on the way.

RSV: Then Jesus called his disciples to him and said, "I have compassion on the crowd, because they have been with me now three days, and have nothing to eat; and I am unwilling to send them away *hungry*, lest they faint on the way."

NASB: And Jesus called His disciples to Him, and said, "I feel compassion for the people, because they have remained with Me now three days and have nothing to eat; and I do not want to send them away *hungry*, for they might faint on the way."

HCSB: Now Jesus summoned His disciples and said, "I have compassion on the crowd, because they've already stayed with Me three days and have nothing to eat. I don't want to send them away *hungry*; otherwise they might collapse on the way."


I refuse to use any modern English translations of the Bible for memorization, reading, or studying, because of these and other errors, some of which are heretical. (e.g. Micah 5:2 NIV, ESV, RSV, et. al) The 400th anniversary of the AV is 2011. In all that time English speakers have yet to produce any translation comparable to the AV. Hope springs eternal.


----------



## Stomata leontôn (Oct 20, 2008)

Galatians220 said:


> In the Westcott-Hort stream of translations, though, there are some themes that one can readily pick out. One is a denigration of the deity and perfection of Jesus Christ,...


Considering the base manuscripts were written in Alexandria at the height of the Arian heresy there, this theme is suggestive. Also, the fact that the favorite manuscript, Sinaiticus, was found pristine, apparently _unused_ for 1400 years is suspicious, too: it was a version of Scripture, physically attractive, thus perhaps too good to throw out, but the doctrinal weakenings would make it unfit for use in the church. So when we use these manuscripts, are we using the Arian New Testament?


----------



## PointyHaired Calvinist (Oct 20, 2008)

I've always found modern translations (including the NKJV) to be strong on the divine nature of Christ where the KJV is not so much. E.g. Romans 9.5, Titus 2.13, 2 Peter 1.1. (Of course my Geneva gets these right too in many cases! :-D)

And about Alexandria being the "heresy bastion" - if Arians corrupted the manuscripts against Christ's deity, they did a very sloppy job, as no major conservative modern translation omits John 1.1, 8.58, 20.28, Philippians 2.5-6, or Colossians 2.9. 

Plus, saying how many heretics were in Alexandria is a straw man. Didn't St. Cyril, St. Alexander, and St. Athanasius all come from Alexandria? Weren't they staunchly orthodox and trinitarian?


----------



## JohnGill (Oct 21, 2008)

*Doubtful at best*



jtate732 said:


> I've always found modern translations (including the NKJV) to be strong on the divine nature of Christ where the KJV is not so much. E.g. *(1) * Romans 9.5, *(2) *Titus 2.13, 2 Peter 1.1. (Of course my Geneva gets these right too in many cases! :-D)
> 
> *(3) *And about Alexandria being the "heresy bastion" - if Arians corrupted the manuscripts against Christ's deity, they did a very sloppy job, as no major conservative modern translation omits John 1.1, 8.58, 20.28, Philippians 2.5-6, or Colossians 2.9.
> 
> *(4) *Plus, saying how many heretics were in Alexandria is a straw man. Didn't St. Cyril, St. Alexander, and St. Athanasius all come from Alexandria? Weren't they staunchly orthodox and trinitarian?



1) As neither Gill's nor Henry's Commentary nor the Westminster Larger Catechism Q. 36 consider the AV rendering to be problematic it is disingenuous to claim that the AV is, concerning the divine nature of Christ, weaker than modern versions at this point.

2) Referring to the Granville Sharp "Rule" does not help. Calvin Winstanley's objections to it have yet to be answered satisfactorily. It should also be pointed out that the AV provides an accurate *translation* of the Greek while the modern versions provide an *interpretation*. (See WLC Q.38, Q.97)

3) You have failed to acknowledge that Arius' heresy was based, in part, upon the faulty rendering of Proverbs 8:22 as found in the Septuagint. A rendering which is repeated in many modern versions. (NIV, ESV, HCSB, NRSV, RSV) You also neglected the mention of John 1:18 in some of the modern versions shows the corruption of the heretics Porphyry and Valentinus. You also failed to mention the attributing of a lie to Jesus in John 7:8-10. (NASB, ESV, RSV) I also noticed you failed to mention the replacing of "God" for "He" or "who" in 1 Timothy 3:16. As the word "God" is only missing from 4 of the manuscripts which contain the verse, including Aleph, modern versions are suspect for this. You also failed to mention the support of modern versions for the kenosis heresy in Phil 2:7. (NASB, ESV, NIV, HCSB, RSV) And of course all modern versions, save the NKJV, deny the Doctrine of Original Sin in Psalm 119:9. We don't keep our way pure as it is corrupt to begin with. We cleanse our way by taking heed to the word of God. (Arians actually did their work quite well. See John Burgon's Causes of Corruption and the Traditional Text.)

4) I agree with you here.

As pointed out in my previous post the NIV, ESV, RSV, NRSV, & NLT all deny the eternality of Christ in Micah 5:2; and thereby deny his deity. (They support the Jewish teaching that this verse does not prophesy concerning Christ.) Taking this list of modern versions with the list that use the corrupt Septuagint rendering of Proverbs 8:22 and those that teach Christ is a liar in John 7:8-10, and those that deny the Doctrine of Original Sin, most if not all modern versions, explicitly deny the deity of Christ. Neither the Geneva nor the Authorized Version suffer from these problems.

It does not matter which verses these modern versions leave intact, but which verses they change or remove. In making these various changes these modern versions are logically contradictory. It doesn't matter if the whole of a modern version save one verse teaches the Doctrine of Original Sin. That one contradictory verse undoes all the others. One contradiction destroys a system of thought.


----------



## larryjf (Oct 21, 2008)

I would like to remind everybody that this is a thread about the NKJV and the KJV. It's not a thread about the different manuscript "families" but about how the NKJV, while claiming to adhere to the same underlying text as the KJV, still translates passages in different way to the KJV.


----------



## JohnGill (Oct 21, 2008)

Two PDF files which list problems with the NKJV: 

The New King James Version: What today's Christian needs to know about the NKJV (A110) pdf

The New King James Version and the Song of Solomon pdf

Hebrews 2:16

NKJV - For indeed He does not *give aid* to angels, but He does give aid to the seed of Abraham. 

AV - For verily he took not on him *the nature* of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.

Big difference between giving aid and taking on a nature.

Interesting paragraph from the first article:



> The NKJV has a different philosophical and theological ba sis from the AV. One critic of English translations states, ‘Despite their lip service to the 1611 revisers, the NKJV preparers hold different presuppositions which come to light in their work’.19 The NKJV is the product primarily of a late twentieth-century American Fundamentalist-Baptist-Evangelical (in its broadest terms) perspective. This is not a criticism of the United States or the perspective of the translators; instead, it points out that the theological biases of the NKJV will be different from those of the AV. ‘Some of the passages [in the AV] formerly accused of having been unduly influenced by Calvinism have been *modified*.’20 These modifications display the differences between the theological stances of the NKJV translators and those of the AV translators.



And this paragraph:



> An example of the theological bias of the NKJV translators is found in their use of capitalisation in 2 Thessalonians 2.7. Here the NKJV has ‘He who now restrains’. This capitalisation of ‘he’ indicates that it is the Holy Spirit who restrains and who will be ‘taken out of the way’. This ‘lends encouragement to the dis pensational interpretation of this passage and will for them confirm the dispensationalist’s supposition that the Holy Spirit is being men tioned.‘22



(Footnote references refer to the following book: Jack P Lewis, The English Bible from KJV to NIV, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI, USA: Baker Book House, 1991), p. 339, 343, & 347.)


----------



## Archlute (Oct 21, 2008)

larryjf said:


> One of the issues that i have come back to from time to time is why is the KJV better than the NKJV. Rev. Winzer has helped me in this area a few times, and i would now like to point out what i consider to be some interesting differences in translation.
> 
> The NKJV weakens God's sovereignty in this verse.
> 
> ...




Interesting stuff.

As far as the difference in Rev. 16:16, I find it odd that NKJV went with the third person plural, as even the CT version found in the NA27 has the third person singular. It looks like the NKJV went with just the Vulgate and the Alexandrian on that point, but isn't it supposed to be a Majority Text translation?

As far as Heb. 3:16. The Greek text is the same in either case, it is just an issue of interpreting the slant of the statement, whether interrogative or indicative, and since punctuation is not included in the Greek originals, it is a matter of interpretive context. Not really a big deal.

The KJV of Galatians 5:4 just gets it wrong. There is no way to take the passive second person plural verb with the genitive construct using "apo" in the way that is found in the KJV. Unless there is some other mss evidence that the KJV is using that does not show up in my apparatus, I'd have to say that they tanked the translation. That's okay, because they do it with their interpretation of the opening dative phrase found in Galatians 5:1 as well.

The term under consideration in Matt. 15:32 is derived from a root most often used to describe activities of fasting, but to assume that this cognate must therefore refer to the act of fasting also is to commit the etymological fallacy of linguistics. In fact, when a study is done on how this form is used in other Greek lit (not to mention how it is rendered in the parallel Gospel passages of Matt./Mark by BDAG), it is seen that almost uniformly the sense is given as "hunger, famine, or being restricted from eating by necessity rather than personal volition". So, I would go with the NKJV on this translation again.

But at least the KJV seems to score a point with Rev. 16:16!


----------



## larryjf (Oct 21, 2008)

Archlute said:


> As far as the difference in Rev. 16:16, I find it odd that NKJV went with the third person plural, as even the CT version found in the NA27 has the third person singular. It looks like the NKJV went with just the Vulgate and the Alexandrian on that point, but isn't it supposed to be a Majority Text translation?


As Farstad was the General Editor, it was originally going to use the Farstad/Hodges Majority Text. But they decided to use the Received Text for the translation...most likely for marketing strategy.



Archlute said:


> As far as Heb. 3:16. The Greek text is the same in either case, it is just an issue of interpreting the slant of the statement, whether interrogative or indicative, and since punctuation is not included in the Greek originals, it is a matter of interpretive context. Not really a big deal.


I think how the translators interpret the text is an important issue to look into. We are all the product of our environment to some extent. As such, American translators today interpret things from a different context than did the translators from the 17th century.
Some of the things that impact today's translators would be: women's liberation movements, focus on individuality, focus on feelings and emotionalism, reliance on the non-existent original manuscripts as our authority, etc. etc.

I would suggest that the interpretation that the NKJV uses for Heb 3:16 shows that they don't hold the Scripture in as high esteem as the 17th century translators did. They translate it as a religious text instead of a sacred text, giving it greater flexibility in its treatment. So they can say in effect, "so what if 'all' didn't rebel, we can still translate it that way since we aren't dealing with the originals, and it's only the originals that have the final authority."
I see the NKJV translators having this issue with the text also because they chose the TR instead of the MT, even though they felt the MT was a better text.



Archlute said:


> The KJV of Galatians 5:4 just gets it wrong. There is no way to take the passive second person plural verb with the genitive construct using "apo" in the way that is found in the KJV. Unless there is some other mss evidence that the KJV is using that does not show up in my apparatus, I'd have to say that they tanked the translation.


That still doesn't make the NKJV rendering correct. "Estranged" conveys the idea of enmity coming in where love used to dwell, and that seems a little too interpretive from our modern emotionalism standpoint.




Archlute said:


> The term under consideration in Matt. 15:32 is derived from a root most often used to describe activities of fasting, but to assume that this cognate must therefore refer to the act of fasting also is to commit the etymological fallacy of linguistics.


I wouldn't say that it had to be translated as fasting either, but in the context i would think fasting is perfectly suited. If they weren't fasting and were simply hungry why didn't the young boy already eat his food?


----------



## MW (Oct 21, 2008)

Archlute said:


> The KJV of Galatians 5:4 just gets it wrong. There is no way to take the passive second person plural verb with the genitive construct using "apo" in the way that is found in the KJV. Unless there is some other mss evidence that the KJV is using that does not show up in my apparatus, I'd have to say that they tanked the translation. That's okay, because they do it with their interpretation of the opening dative phrase found in Galatians 5:1 as well.



The idea of severing or alienation is an extension of "katargew," which is only required when the speaker is referring to a subjective relation to an object. The apostle's concern is clearly with the objective status of his readers in Gal. 5:1-5, which requires the word to be understood in its natural signification as making void or inactive. William Hendriksen enters into an apology for making exegesis overrule theology, but the fact is that he has made the exegesis to speak to the wrong theological subject. Perseverance of the saints only becomes an issue by reading the subjective relation into the apostle's words, as is done by the modern translators both here and in chap. 1:6. When the objective status of the readers is understood to be the focus of the apostle's rebuke then it is only the privileges they are claiming from Christ which are rendered null and void, not a living union with Him.

"Apo" could be taken as indicating the direct agent of the passive action, and hence legitimately made the subject of the sentence.

The Byzantine tradition includes the definite article in the prepositional phrase, but this is omitted in the critical apparatus.


----------



## AThornquist (Oct 22, 2008)

Grymir said:


> Daniel, Sorry. You have no idea how many times that same thing comes up with the newer people on the board. They see us real KJV users, and lump us into the KJV-Only crowd.



I was one of them  After reading through about 6 hours worth of debates on here and trying to digest them, I understand the KJV-preferred folk _much_ more. Ha, I thought ignominiously unscholarly people like Gail Riplinger held the arguments for using the KJV. Nope...apparently honest people have arguments for it as well! Still, I prefer the ESV, but I view KJV-only (particularly uneducated fanatics like Riplinger) and KJV-preferred groups (such as some of you) in very different ways now. 
The conversation in this thread has been edifying for me as well. One thing that bothers me sometimes though is that it can appear that the KJV is the standard of truth; thus, when other translations--the NKJV in this case--are compared to the KJV in regards to wording, the KJV is viewed as right and the others, if different, as wrong. I'm sure that isn't really the case most of the time though.


----------



## Grymir (Oct 22, 2008)

AThornquist said:


> The conversation in this thread has been edifying for me as well. One thing that bothers me sometimes though is that it can appear that the KJV is the standard of truth; thus, when other translations--the NKJV in this case--are compared to the KJV in regards to wording, the KJV is viewed as right and the others, if different, as wrong. I'm sure that isn't really the case most of the time though.



Yes indead, some of the people here on the PB have taught me well, it was educational to read some of the debates.

I don't think others (except the NIV and those pesky paraphrases) are wrong, but I don't think they are as suited for research. I don't speak Greek and Hebrew, but when I've gone against liberal theologians, the KJV hasn't let me down when the conversation degrades to the usual "Well Tim, what does that say in the original languages". I make them look it up, and the KJV has compaired very well. (Meaning that I get to say, "See, I was right") It's precision in language is unbeatable.

I think each version has it's usage (ie, pluses and minuses) One for family's to use, another for the newcomers whose english isn't as good, and another for research. I do subscribe to the idea that the best translation is one that a person will read. It does annoy me when a person who isn't familiar with the Biblical english in the KJV mis-uses it. 

I am glad that you view us in a different light now. Just call us - Real KJV Users!!


----------



## JohnGill (Oct 22, 2008)

*I must disagree*



Grymir said:


> AThornquist said:
> 
> 
> > The conversation in this thread has been edifying for me as well. One thing that bothers me sometimes though is that it can appear that the KJV is the standard of truth; thus, when other translations--the NKJV in this case--are compared to the KJV in regards to wording, the KJV is viewed as right and the others, if different, as wrong. I'm sure that isn't really the case most of the time though.
> ...



We need to change KJV to AV. Why? RKJVU is not as catchy as RAVUs.


----------



## Grymir (Oct 22, 2008)

RAVU's! I like it!


----------



## larryjf (Oct 22, 2008)

AThornquist said:


> One thing that bothers me sometimes though is that it can appear that the KJV is the standard of truth; thus, when other translations--the NKJV in this case--are compared to the KJV in regards to wording, the KJV is viewed as right and the others, if different, as wrong. I'm sure that isn't really the case most of the time though.



When comparing the NKJV and KJV i think that's an appropriate thing to do simply because they are both supposed to use the same underlying text. When speaking of other versions it's more profitable to discuss the manuscript issues themselves.


----------



## Galatians220 (Oct 22, 2008)

The NKJV has been marketed as "The King James Bible, only better." But it is not: The NKJV Examined.

The NKJV largely adopts the same CT "variants" as the NASB and the NIV. Much of it has other bases, among them the _Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia_ (BHS), and not that of the KJV:

..._Because of modern textual criticism, the certainty and dogmatism of a settled biblical text has been replaced with the uncertainty of conflicting texts_.

This is true for the New Testament. Westcott and Hort’s principles that gave us the critical Greek text in 1881 have undergone continual modification throughout the 20th century and into the 21st, and the Greek Testament based on those theories has also continually shifted, with a subsequent change in the translations based on it. The 3rd edition of the UBS Greek New Testament differed from the 2nd edition three years earlier in more than 500 places, and the same five textual critics made those changes.
The same is true for the Old Testament. With the introduction of textual theories whereby the Hebrew Masoretic text was dethroned, the Old Testament has undergone continual revision on the basis of the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Greek Septuagint, the Samaritan Pentateuch, the Latin Vulgate, the Syriac Peshitta, the Targums, the Symmachus and Theodotion Greek translations of the Old Testament, and other sources. These are the sources listed in the Preface to the 1978 New International Version as the basis for the NIV O.T. translation (pp. viii, xi). Dr. Donald Waite observes: “The NIV editors have very honestly and very boldly altered the foundations of our Old Testament text in the above fifteen DIFFERENT WAYS, whenever it suited their fancy! You don't know at what point they’ve used one document to contradict the Masoretic Hebrew text, and at what point they used another document” (Waite, _Defending the King James Bible_). According to Dr. Waite’s calculations, the 1937 Hebrew text by Rudolph Kittel (_Biblia Hebraica_) and *the 1977 Stuttgart edition of the Hebrew Old Testament (Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia) contain footnotes listing some 20,000 to 30,000 textual changes. Even the New King James Bible, which professes to follow the same textual foundation as the King James Bible, follows instead an eclectic Old Testament, modifying the Hebrew Masoretic with the Septuagint, the Latin Vulgate, “a variety of ancient versions,” and the Dead Sea Scrolls (New King James Bible, Preface). *As with the New Testament, those who are doing the revision of the Old Testament do not agree in their principles or their conclusions. Consider one area of O.T. textual evidence, that of the Dead Sea Scrolls. The first of these was discovered in a cave near the Dead Sea in 1947, with subsequent finds in nearby caves. The first finds supported the Masoretic text but subsequent finds unearthed some O.T. manuscripts that differ from the Masoretic. Textual scholars do not agree on many important points touching these manuscripts, not even their date. G.R. Driver (1965) disagreed with Burrows, Albright, and Cross, claiming that the Dead Sea Scrolls were written in the first two centuries A.D., rather than B.C. This is brought out in the book _Second Thoughts on the Dead Sea Scrolls_ (1956) by F.F. Bruce. The very title of the book exposes the fact that the textual scholars disagree and that their conclusions are in flux.

..._The contemporary doctrine of eclecticism has elevated the Bible student as the master of the text and has resulted in a massive decline in the authority of the Scriptures in this generation_.

The concept of dogmatic interpretation and preaching has faded greatly because of this damnable principle. In a typical Bible study in a church that has bought into eclecticism, every individual is an authority unto his or herself as to what Greek manuscript or Greek text or English translation to follow in any given instance. There is no dogmatic authority for any statement, because someone can always come up with an alternative reading. This same principle has greatly weakened the authority of Bible preaching. I recall a visit in August 2003 to Saddleback Church in southern California, where Rick Warren of “Purpose Driven Church” fame is senior pastor. I observed on the way into the auditorium that only a few people carried Bibles, and the reason became clear when I saw the bewildering multiplicity of versions that were used in the preaching. An outline of the sermon was handed out with the bulletin, and six or seven versions were quoted, most of them loose paraphrases or dynamic equivalencies such as the Living Bible, the New Living Translation, The Message, Today’s English Version, and the Contemporary English Version. It would be impossible to follow along in one’s Bible. The result is that the people do not bring their own Bibles and do not therefore carefully test the preaching. How could they, when any biblical statement they would attempt to examine has dozens of variations?

_...The uncertainty produced by modern textual criticism has given ammunition to the enemies of the Bible_.

They recognize, even if the evangelicals and fundamentalists who have adopted textual criticism don’t, that an array of conflicting texts and versions undermines the doctrine of divine inspiration and preservation.

..._Modern textual criticism has led many into theological modernism_.

(Emphasis is mine; this is copied from www.wayoflife.org.)

Very sorry for the earlier, off-topic posts. I deleted them.

Margaret


----------



## Stomata leontôn (Oct 22, 2008)

jtate732 said:


> And about Alexandria being the "heresy bastion" - if Arians corrupted the manuscripts against Christ's deity, they did a very sloppy job, as no major conservative modern translation omits John 1.1, 8.58, 20.28, Philippians 2.5-6, or Colossians 2.9.


No, that's perfectly consistent with Arianism. Arius did not deny that Jesus was God, he _weakened_ it. He was _subordinationist_, meaning he believed that Jesus was God, but less than the Father. Thus we would expect an Arian New Testament to keep some passages that support his deity, but remove others. And that is exactly what we find with the Alexandrian texts.



jtate732 said:


> Plus, saying how many heretics were in Alexandria is a straw man. Didn't St. Cyril, St. Alexander, and St. Athanasius all come from Alexandria? Weren't they staunchly orthodox and trinitarian?


Athanasius actually fought the Arians. The theological issue with Sinaiticus and its cousin manuscripts is certainly not just where they came from, but the fact that they show a pattern of _weakening_ of Christ's equality with the Father, and were written in Alexandria -- _when_ -- Arianism was at its height.

But the main reason to reject these manuscripts is that they differ from *94%* of all NT manuscripts -- including the very oldest papyri!

And Sinaticus was clearly never used by Christians for 1400 years.


----------



## larryjf (Oct 22, 2008)

I find that issues of Arian influence are quite interesting. Many of these kinds of issues are based on certain presuppositions.

One could say that Arians edited the text to support their heresy more, or one could say that the Orthodox edited the text to fight against such heresy.

A key question for me falls more along the lines of which text the Church has accepted. Then the we must decide what time frame we are referring to. Over the entire span of Church history the Byzantine text has been widely accepted. In the modern Church the Critical Text is widely accepted.

Perhaps we can learn from Scripture itself. Jesus and His contemporaries seem to have used a text that was common to their generation yet different from previous generations. At the same time they did not diminish the sacredness of the Scripture, but in fact proclaimed it.

Perhaps in our modern culture, where direct quotes and verbatim responses are par for the day, we misjudge the context that the Scriptures were written in.


----------



## Stomata leontôn (Oct 22, 2008)

larryjf said:


> I find that issues of Arian influence are quite interesting. Many of these kinds of issues are based on certain presuppositions.
> 
> One could say that Arians edited the text to support their heresy more, or one could say that the Orthodox edited the text to fight against such heresy.
> 
> A key question for me falls more along the lines of which text the Church has accepted.


No. The orthodox far outnumbered the heretics and the NT manuscripts all agree with each other 94% of the time. The Alexandrian manuscripts used in the CT do not agree very well with each other (which is why the text-critical, eclectic text exists), another fact that is consistent with alteration. To introduce the hypothesis that everyone got it wrong but the Arians has three problems:

(1) That _orthodox_ Christians are so dishonest, we would alter our own Scriptures to support our views;
(2) That the vast majority of Christians inside and outside the empire conspired in a vast conspiracy lasting thousands of years;
(3) Here is corroborative evidence suggesting that Arians may have altered manuscripts (owing to motive consistent with doctrinal themes and by opportunity of time and place), but there is no such corroboration that orthodox believers did likewise.


----------



## TimV (Oct 22, 2008)

> (1) That orthodox Christians are so dishonest, we would alter our own Scriptures to support our views;
> (2) That the vast majority of Christians inside and outside the empire conspired in a vast conspiracy lasting thousands of years;
> (3) Here is corroborative evidence suggesting that Arians may have altered manuscripts (owing to motive consistent with doctrinal themes and by opportunity of time and place), but there is no such corroboration that orthodox believers did likewise.



Exactly. Conspiracy theories and bad sources don't make a good hypothesis.


----------



## larryjf (Oct 22, 2008)

Peter H said:


> No. The orthodox far outnumbered the heretics and the NT manuscripts all agree with each other 94% of the time. The Alexandrian manuscripts used in the CT do not agree very well with each other (which is why the text-critical, eclectic text exists), another fact that is consistent with alteration.


I presume you are speaking of the 2 manuscripts - Sinaiticus and Vaticanus - when you say that the Alexandrian manuscripts don't agree with each other very well. First, those are not the only 2 witnesses for the Alexandrian text. Second, the fact that there are differences does not prove a purposeful editing of the text.

The Koran is very uniform in its existing texts. Not because it's so close to the original, but because the text was purposefully edited to make one "official" text. To suggest that there is no way that the Orthodox would do such a thing to the Christian Scriptures is to presume too much.

The Diocletian persecution focused more intently on the Byzantine area than on others. They destroyed Scripture manuscripts to a very large degree. It wasn't until after this persecution that the Byzantines could have progressed in any way regarding the production of texts since they would have just been destroyed. Therefore, it is possible that after the Diocletian persecution the Byzantines created an "official" version of the Scriptures that would have smoothed out the text quite substantially. Since the manuscripts that were created after that would have been copied from the "official" version they would be very similar and agree with each other a great deal.




Peter H said:


> To introduce the hypothesis that everyone got it wrong but the Arians has three problems:
> 
> (1) That _orthodox_ Christians are so dishonest, we would alter our own Scriptures to support our views;
> (2) That the vast majority of Christians inside and outside the empire conspired in a vast conspiracy lasting thousands of years;
> (3) Here is corroborative evidence suggesting that Arians may have altered manuscripts (owing to motive consistent with doctrinal themes and by opportunity of time and place), but there is no such corroboration that orthodox believers did likewise.


You would first have to prove that the Arians are responsible for the Alexandrian texts, and not just the 2 texts mentioned above, but also the P75 and such.

1 - I do not put orthodox Christians beyond the reach of sin, so yes they can be dishonest.

2 - You wouldn't need a huge conspiracy, you would need a very small one right after the persecution. The generations after that would have simply been faithfully copying what they had received. I don't even think "conspiracy" is the right word as they were simply trying to get their text back that was destroyed.

3 - The orthodox would have the same motive of doctrinal themes. They would also have a need to create a text after the persecution.


----------



## Stomata leontôn (Oct 22, 2008)

Why use only the 'Critical Text' (CT) which shows hundreds of examples of subordinating Christ's deity to the Father when 94% of all NT manuscripts agree with each other and disagree with the CT?

To say that Christians who believed in the inspiration of holy Scripture deliberately changed it wholesale (in 94% of the manuscripts), is an extraordinary claim. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary _proof_. So far, no _evidence_ has been given. 

The poor agreement among _all_ Alexandrian manuscripts (the source of the CT) is consistent with _their_ deliberate falsification, not that of all the other manuscripts. It is more difficult to get a falsification straight among many hands than it is simply to copy the truth. Put more simply, police look for variations in a story as evidence of a lie. Consistency is evidence of truth. 

Assuming manuscripts of the Koran are more consistent than the Alexandrian family, then the Alexandrian copyists were less conscientious than Muslims. Something to think about.

Diocletian ruled the one empire, East and West. His persecution was systematic in both East and West. Further, the theory of a "Western textual family" has been debunked. Essentially, this leaves one family used by the Great Church, and one by a very tiny minority associated with Alexandria at the height of Arianism.

But regarding the rest of Christians, to say they "created" a new text means that most _all_ Scripture was lost and forgotten. To claim that almost nothing survived Diocletian's persecution would require extraordinary proof. But where is the evidence that most all Christian owners of manuscripts were _traditori_?

Almost everyone would have been disciplined and excommunicated, which somehow escaped notice. Remember that during the Donatist controversy, bishop Felix of Aptunga was impeached (and cleared) for allegations that he was one such _traditor_; if everyone else did the same thing, why does history record him as exceptional?

Nonetheless, even assuming that _only a few_ manuscripts survived the persecution, then there is yet the authentic basis for more copies of original, inspired Scripture.

Once again, it is an extraordinary claim to say that a new Biblical text was created. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. But no _evidence_ corroborates this.

The actual evidence says the opposite. Predating both Diocletian's persecution and the Alexandrian family are papyri belonging to the supposedly lately "created" texts. Time travel?

And then, how did millions of Christian inside the Roman Empire and outside (did Diocletian's persecution reach that far?) keep quiet about this hypothetical new text?

So again, why use only the 'Critical Text' which shows hundreds of examples of subordinating Christ's deity to the Father?




larryjf said:


> I presume...


----------



## JohnGill (Oct 22, 2008)

larryjf said:


> I find that issues of Arian influence are quite interesting. Many of these kinds of issues are based on certain presuppositions.



Some underlying presuppositions of modern textual criticism:
1) The Bible can be treated like any other book (contrary to scripture and therefore false Hebrews 4:12; WCF 1)
2) There was a Lucian recension (completely discredited; no historical support)
3) The true text of scripture has been lost and autonomous man must recover it (contrary to scripture and therefore false WCF 1.8; Is 59:21; Acts 2:38; Jn 17:17; et. al.)

The presuppositions of modern textual criticism do not comport with reality. 

If the text type used throughout the majority of the history of Christendom was one type, and the modern critical text is another type based on a text type abandoned for the most part by Christendom for over 1500 yrs, the final determining factor would not be our reasoning, but would instead be scripture.

Isaiah 59:21 - As for me, this is my covenant with them, saith the LORD; My spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed's seed, saith the LORD, from henceforth and for ever.

As the critical text and its underlying text type do not have the greatest geographical and chronological distribution they do not meet the qualifications of this verse.


----------



## larryjf (Oct 22, 2008)

Peter H said:


> Why use only the 'Critical Text' (CT) which shows hundreds of examples of subordinating Christ's deity to the Father when 94% of all NT manuscripts agree with each other and disagree with the CT?


This goes back to what's already been discussed regarding the presumption that it was changed to be more heterodox rather than more orthodox.




Peter H said:


> To say that Christians who believed in the inspiration of holy Scripture deliberately changed it wholesale (in 94% of the manuscripts), is an extraordinary claim. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary _proof_. So far, no _evidence_ has been given.


Again, going back to what's already been discussed, it's not that 94% of the manuscripts were deliberately changed, but that one or a few were created after the Diocletian persecution. The rest of the 94% simply faithfully copied those few that were created.



Peter H said:


> The poor agreement among _all_ Alexandrian manuscripts (the source of the CT) is consistent with _their_ deliberate falsification, not that of all the other manuscripts. It is more difficult to get a falsification straight among many hands than it is simply to copy the truth. Put more simply, police look for variations in a story as evidence of a lie. Consistency is evidence of truth.


Dealing with texts is a very different enterprise then dealing with police matters. I will again point to the Koran to make that point. Clearly a religious text can be edited in order to remove variation.
If you could prove that "all" Alexandrian manuscripts are in poor agreement i would like to see that. Particularly between the P75 and Vaticanus.




Peter H said:


> Diocletian ruled the one empire, East and West. His persecution was systematic in both East and West. Further, the theory of a "Western textual family" has been debunked. Essentially, this leaves one family used by the Great Church, and one by a very tiny minority associated with Alexandria at the height of Arianism.


Theodore Letis points out in his dissertation that the persecution was probably more severe in the East. He uses this information to show that the Byzantine text is more accurate pointing out that they would have hidden their most precious manuscripts, and then when the persecution was over they would have made copies from these "good" manuscripts.

This just shows that it's a matter of one's interpretation of the events, which was my point.




Peter H said:


> But regarding the rest of Christians, to say they "created" a new text means that most _all_ Scripture was lost and forgotten. To claim that almost nothing survived Diocletian's persecution would require extraordinary proof. But where is the evidence that most all Christian owners of manuscripts were _traditori_?


It is just one possibility of what may have historically happened. I don't support that theory, but we must understand that much of our interpretation of the history of the text at this early stage is presumption.



Peter H said:


> Almost everyone would have been disciplined and excommunicated, which somehow escaped notice. Remember that during the Donatist controversy, bishop Felix of Aptunga was impeached (and cleared) for allegations that he was one such _traditor_; if everyone else did the same thing, why does history record him as exceptional?


I wouldn't think that every "owner" of a manuscript would be considered as worthy to fill the history books as a bishop would be. Certainly there were many who were traitors, not just Felix of Aptunga.
Since the persecutors wouldn't have needed permission to burn the manuscripts this would go back to the other presumptions spoken of...especially regarding manuscripts that may have been hidden.




Peter H said:


> Nonetheless, even assuming that _only a few_ manuscripts survived the persecution, then there is yet the authentic basis for more copies of original, inspired Scripture.


Again, this depends on how you interpret the data.



Peter H said:


> Once again, it is an extraordinary claim to say that a new Biblical text was created. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. But no _evidence_ corroborates this.


It's just one possibility...and it's not actually the creation of a new text, but the reconstruction of a text that was lost.
There is no proof, just as there is no proof of Arian involvement...that's my point, it's a matter of interpretation of the events.



Peter H said:


> The actual evidence says the opposite. Predating both Diocletian's persecution and the Alexandrian family are papyri belonging to the supposedly lately "created" texts. Time travel?


There are readings within the papryi, but are there Byzantine-type papyri? If so please name them for me so that i can look into that.




Peter H said:


> And then, how did millions of Christian inside the Roman Empire and outside (did Diocletian's persecution reach that far?) keep quiet about this hypothetical new text?


Did they keep as quiet as they did with the Arians creating a text-type?




Peter H said:


> So again, why use only the 'Critical Text' which shows hundreds of examples of subordinating Christ's deity to the Father?


Or the Byzantine shows examples of inserting passage to make the orthodox belief more prevalent in the text...again, a matter of interpretation.

I am a supporter of the KJV and the texts that it is based off of. I just don't think that many of the arguments are worthy to be pursued to the extent that they have been because it is a matter of interpretation.

For me it is enough that the Church bears her testimony that She has accepted a particular text. To go in search of the originals, find out exactly where textual families come from, etc., etc., is of little consequence. We have the "pillar and ground of the truth" (1 Tim 3:15) that we can rely on.


----------



## Stomata leontôn (Oct 22, 2008)

larryjf said:


> This goes back to what's already been discussed regarding the presumption that it was changed to be more heterodox rather than more orthodox... It's just one possibility... copied those few that were created... There is no proof...


You are of course right. Regarding that 94% of all manuscripts of the New Testament are wrong and that fewer than 2% are right: Where's the _evidence_?! What "would have" been is not evidence. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. It's not up to anyone to disprove a claim. The claimant must provide the extraordinary proof.

Nestle-Aland's _Novum Testamentum Graece_ falls far short.

----

To read about the unequivocality of the evidence in favor of 94% of the manuscripts, including ancient papyri, go here: http://walkinhiscommandments.com/pickering3b.htm


----------



## Prufrock (Oct 22, 2008)

Since this post seems to have strayed rather far from topic, I thought I would try to bring it back.

Rev. 16:16 -- First, I don't think the translators would say they were "weakening God's sovereignty," but rather they were accurately giving the sense of the passage. Yes, the verb in Greek in singular. However, it is quite common for collective plural nouns to take a singular verb form. Thus, the translators are simply trying to remain faithful to verse 14 before it. Contextually, it seems it should be they, as, interestingly, even an old "dud" like John Gill says is probable. 

Heb. 3:16 -- I think that if we try to make the passage somehow include the exception of Joshua and Caleb, we wrest the natural meaning of the text. Again, in this passage, I would have to agree with how the NKJV and most others, and most commentators, and all my Greek sense translates it, taking the "tines" as interrogative--"For who where they who heard and rebelled?", not, "For some, when they heard did rebel." The Caleb/Joshua problem I don't think is really a problem--we find such statements all over scripture in both testaments. For instance--was Nebudchenezzer in Daniel _really_ ruler of all the earth, with all creatures subject to him? Or, as we confess that _all_ who are under the law are sinners, do we therefore say that Christ is as well as he was made "under the law?" Scripture, I believe, can use the word all freely when it is assumed we know of the exceptions.

Gal. 5:4 -- I don't think, larryjf that the response you gave regarding this verse is necessarily strong. I do agree that estranged is perhaps not the best word to translate it; but the idea behind it is not so horrible. If you combine the two ideas of King Jimmy and New King Jimmy, I think you do get an accurate picture. As Fritzsche said, to katargeisthai someone is "to come to nothing in regard to the relation hitherto subsisting with anyone, so that we are parted from him." This very accurately captures the meaning of the word, in my opinion. I think, in this case, neither of the translations quite hits the nail on the head.

Lastly, Matthew 15:32 -- I don't think there is any difference here at all. I agree, it is not the best word choice by the NKJV. I would simply translate the passage, "send them away not eating (or without food)." But I think you may be over interpreting a passage based upon cognates of the ENGLISH word. 

It is interesting to me that all of these questions are not based upon questions of textual criticism; are not based upon anything confessional, etc. And yet the general mood here is that King Jimmy is best, and shouldn't be questioned too much, as though it somehow is more confessional. However, the best translation of scripture, as the faithful have always confessed, is not the one that best proves certain doctrines, but rather that which is most faithful to the text. We should not disparage the continued efforts of the faithful to improve our translations for the church, as the preface to the KJV itself testifies.

All in all, as a thoroughly confessional man, I think for the most part you have picked verses which _do_ show an improvement in translational ability--particularly the Hebrews example.


----------



## Prufrock (Oct 22, 2008)

Bottom line:

I think that, even though confessional people would generally with words deny KJV-onlyism, it seems to be living implicitly in this discussion:

_This is what the KJV says, and these things say differently; and we know that the KJV is right, therefore these translations must be made in no fear toward God and are trying to change doctrines and ideas._

As we confess, the Old Testament in Hebrew and the New in Greek are authoritative and the judge of controversies. Let's not even flirt with the idea of making the KJV the authoritative scripture for english speaking people.


----------



## Stomata leontôn (Oct 22, 2008)

Prufrock said:


> Bottom line:
> 
> I think that, even though confessional people would generally with words deny KJV-onlyism, it seems to be living implicitly in this discussion:
> 
> ...


This is good! 

There is a problem with using English, rather than the Greek, to support an argument. I don't have time to check just now (maybe later), but since you are already referring to the Greek base, are you using Nestle-Aland or TR or one of the Majority Text versions (there are now three of the latter)? You see, there may be two different readings for the examples you thoughtfully gave.

(By the way, now in a conservative Presb. seminary, I contentedly use Nestle-Aland without complaint as a matter of humility, obedience, and love of the program I am in.)


----------



## Prufrock (Oct 22, 2008)

Thanks for your reply.

Actually, there are no significant variants anywhere for any of the examples he provided.

I'm glad your seminary experience is going well. Soli Deo Gloria!


----------



## larryjf (Oct 22, 2008)

I am sorry that i have been part of the problem with taking this thread off topic. It was never meant to be a thread about manuscripts, but rather about translation choices between two versions that translate from the same text.


----------



## Stomata leontôn (Oct 22, 2008)

larryjf said:


> I am sorry that i have been part of the problem with taking this thread off topic. It was never meant to be a thread about manuscripts, but rather about translation choices between two versions that translate from the same text.



You are a good man, brother!


----------



## Prufrock (Oct 22, 2008)

Not at all, Larry. Thank you.


----------



## Prufrock (Oct 22, 2008)

Peter,

Sorry I didn't really have time to respond earlier. What seminary are you attending? I'm glad that you love it.

My normal, everyday NT is the latest edition of the Nestle-Aland text, but I am by no means a slave to it.

Also, in clarification of my previous quick answer: for the Revelation 16:16 example Larry provided, Codex Sinaiticus is the only variant anywhere of the verb sunagw, and in that case, the verb is made plural. No variants anywhere on Galatians 5:4 or Matthew 15, with respect to the words he selected. Hebrews, of course, is not an issue of variants, but an issue of where interpreters place the accent on _tives_. So from a textual critical point of view, there is nothing of interest here. It all comes down to how we translate these universally attested passages.


----------



## MW (Oct 22, 2008)

Prufrock said:


> _This is what the KJV says, and these things say differently; and we know that the KJV is right, therefore these translations must be made in no fear toward God and are trying to change doctrines and ideas._



This is simply a bad characterisation and one that shrugs off the responsibility to weigh the rationale provided for an AV preferred position.


----------



## Prufrock (Oct 22, 2008)

Rev. Winzer, please forgive me. I did not mean to present a bad caricature of a position, or to shrug of that responsibility. That is not a responsibility I should ever shrug off, and if you cared to have that discussion, I will gladly do it on another thread. I was being overly-brief for the purposes of remaining on track.

The one thing which I would say on this thread, however, and which I hope you will agree, is that we cannot risk elevating such issues to confessional status. These are not our boundary lines; the confessions are. The confessional position is that we appeal to the autographs in Greek.

Finally, as most of the issues regarding an "AV preferred position," as you term it (I like that, by the way--I've never heard that), deal with the greek texts upon which translations are based (unless of course you have entirely different reasons), I would point again that within the context of this thread, all of the examples of translational difference which Larry provided at the start of this thread are the exact same wording in Greek whether you are reading the textus receptus, any major critical text, or what have you. Keeping with Larry's original post, these things become irrelevant and are not a factor.

Again, please forgive me if you feel I was attempting to hastily push something aside.


----------



## MW (Oct 22, 2008)

Prufrock said:


> Rev. Winzer, please forgive me. I did not mean to present a bad caricature of a position, or to shrug of that responsibility. That is not a responsibility I should ever shrug off, and if you cared to have that discussion, I will gladly do it on another thread. I was being overly-brief for the purposes of remaining on track.
> 
> The one thing which I would say on this thread, however, and which I hope you will agree, is that we cannot risk elevating such issues to confessional status. These are not our boundary lines; the confessions are. The confessional position is that we appeal to the autographs in Greek.
> 
> ...



Dear brother, Dr. Warfield's position only leaves an appeal to autographs; if WCF 1:8 is read carefully it will be seen that the apographs are our source of appeal, and these are regarded as entirely preserving what God immediately inspired.

The issues raised by brother Larry actually pertain to translation, not textual criticism. The translation criticisms are not irrelevant if they are understood as speaking to the issue of translation. The AV preferred position does not hold that any old translation will do as long as it "comes close to the original." We hold with the Confession that the purpose of translation is that every one might be able to read "the very Word of God" with a high and reverent esteem.


----------



## Prufrock (Oct 22, 2008)

Rev. Winzer, I think you misread me. I said exactly that: the issue raised by Larry is entirely about translation, and has nothing to do with textual criticism. As such, I'm not sure I can tell exactly what you mean by your post. 

Also, I said exactly what you said about the confessions. I said, according to the confessions, we appeal to the autographs.

Your response was almost an exact copy of what you were responding to.


----------



## MW (Oct 22, 2008)

Prufrock said:


> Rev. Winzer, I think you misread me. I said exactly that: the issue raised by Larry is entirely about translation, and has nothing to do with textual criticism. As such, I'm not sure I can tell exactly what you mean by your post.
> 
> Also, I said exactly what you said about the confessions. I said, according to the confessions, we appeal to the autographs.



I apologise if I am misunderstanding, but it seems you are saying something different. If we agree the thread is about translations, why bring in the issue of textual criticism? Also, I noted that we do not appeal to the autographs, but to the apographs; the Confession teaches the apographs, being providentially preserved, are to be appealed to.


----------



## Prufrock (Oct 22, 2008)

Rev. Winzer --

The textual criticism part was responding to a direct question someone asked me. All along, I had been trying to point out that this question had nothing to do with textual criticism, as all sources agreed on the texts in question. I had been trying to emphasize that all the prior discussion on this had been irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

Also, you're absolutely right: sorry, I misread that you wrote apograph instead of autographa. I use the terms interchangeably at times (perhaps erroneously), following men such as Warfield, and Turretin and Owen, etc., in believing that in our apographs, the autographs are present.

We agree: we appeal to the Greek text. As we have it. Turretin provides, I feel, a fine representation of the reformed understanding of this topic. Variants do not mean corruption. We do not need to appeal to some reconstructed original text to say we are appealing to the authoritative scriptures. This also doesn't mean there's no place in the church for textual criticism, as it seems at least Erasmus agreed a few hundred years ago. But again, this has nothing to do with Larry's post. Sorry for the confusion.

Grace and peace, brother.


----------



## MW (Oct 22, 2008)

Prufrock said:


> The textual criticism part was responding to a direct question someone asked me. All along, I had been trying to point out that this question had nothing to do with textual criticism, as all sources agreed on the texts in question. I had been trying to emphasize that all the prior discussion on this had been irrelevant to the discussion at hand.



I can see the misunderstanding is my fault, and apologise for the confusion.

I am thankful we can agree on the confessional principles of preservation and translation; differences pertaining to the AV preferred position must be arising from an application of these principles. I can assure you that my advocacy of this position is not an a priori assumption on my part; I was not brought up with the AV, but chose it as my preferred Bible after many years of studying the Bible and comparing translations. Blessings!


----------

