KJV vs. NKJV

[MW]

For example, I don't yet see any complaints against the KJV for not distinguishing between all the shades of "love" or reproducing all the tenses.

The AV includes words like charity, benevolence, kindness, etc. It also uses tense differentiation and many other distinguishing features like will/shall, unto/to, etc., but these qualities are rejected by those who believe the "lingo" (not the language) of the reader justifies a translation qualitatively different from the original. Psalm 22:26-28 shows to whom the kingdom of Christ will be satisfying. Not to those who set God a task, but to those who meekly sit at the feet of Jesus and receive what He is pleased to feed them.

I'm just concerned that the KJV becomes the reed by which everything is measured. Whatever the supposed reason, the impression I get from its advocates is that all other versions fail principally because they are, by definition, not the KJV.

I can't speak to your impression, but only to your concern. In any other field of labour "the best" sets the standard. That the AV has set a standard is obvious from all the literature on the subject and even from the prefaces to the revised versions which have been made. The translators consciously set out to imitate the AV.

I agree with Rev. Winzer that we should be seeking the best translation, but "best" will be necessarily subjective.

A confessionally bound individual or organisation is bound to estimate "the best" according to the criteria established in the confession. This is objective, not subjective.

I'd like to share a few quotes I read today.

Please don't overlook this one: "there should be one more exact Translation of the holy Scriptures into the English Tongue."

 

[Afterthought]

A presuppositional approach begins with the conviction that the word of God is in possession while the evidential approach begins with the conviction that the word of God must yet be found.

As a possible objection, someone might argue there are those perceived to be in the "evidential approach" who actually use the other approach. They presuppose we have the word of God in possession.....even in the CT that we currently possess! For we do indeed possess the CT. It would seem that the presupposition needs to be modified to "we are in possession of the word of God and always have been in possession of it"? I'm aware that the Reformers rejected the CT readings though they did not have access to the CT. So perhaps another modification would be to understand the "word of God" as not necessarily attached to the words written on the text types? Or maybe I should just hear your response to such an objection instead of listing possibilities.

 

[MW]

They presuppose we have the word of God in possession.....even in the CT that we currently possess!

If this "CT" is the word of God in possession it has very little realistic substance, as is clear from the critics' own declaration. First, it takes us back to the fourth century. Secondly, it only approximates to what is thought to be the original. Thirdly, it requires conjectural emendation which has no support from any ms.

To clarify, "the word of God" is not a phantom. "God spake." This is an historically realistic fact. "It is written" is an historically realistic fact. When I refer to the word of God in possession I mean something which is actually possessed, can be taken up in the hands, received with faith and love, and laid up in the heart.

 

[Logan]

A confessionally bound individual or organisation is bound to estimate "the best" according to the criteria established in the confession. This is objective, not subjective.

Is it your opinion that those who subscribed but continued to use the Geneva Bible after 1646 were unconfessional? Or that my elders are breaking their acceptance of the confession when they use the NKJV publicly?

Or is it a matter of conscience?

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Going back to the OP for a moment, and Josh’s questions. In post #7 I answered re the NKJV’s margin notes, which I appreciate.

An unfortunate translation / rendering in the NKJV is at Heb 2:16,

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

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

I won’t go into it save to say that the NKJV (and most other modern versions) depart from the context, which verse 14 shows to be, “Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same”. And is it true that God does not give aid to angels? I think that is not true.

As I have said elsewhere, I like the NKJV, though with some reservations.

-----------

But to get to the larger picture that is being discussed again, now in the present thread.

What follows is a brief quote by Dr. Theodore P. Letis, in the book he edited and contributed to, The Majority Text: Essays And Reviews In The Continuing Debate, from the essay, “In Reply to D.A. Carson’s ‘The King James Version Debate’ ”.

Some will fault me for not answering every objection of Carson’s, but it was only our intention to raise the old issue of presuppositions and to underscore the fact that this debate is not one between experts with data and non-experts with dogma, but rather one between experts with the same data, but different dogma—the dogma of neutrality versus the dogma of providence… (p 204)​

The larger discussion from which this is taken is here.

And this is the issue, as both Rev Winzer and Bryan have brought up. Harvard text critic, E. F. Hills, has put it like this:

Has the text of the New Testament, like those of other ancient books, been damaged during its voyage over the seas of time? Ought the same methods of textual criticism to be applied to it that are applied to the texts of other ancient books? These are questions which the following pages will endeavor to answer. An earnest effort will be made to convince the Christian reader that this is a matter to which he must attend. For in the realm of New Testament textual criticism as well as in other fields the presuppositions of modern thought are hostile to the historic Christian faith and will destroy it if their fatal operation is not checked. If faithful Christians, therefore, would defend their sacred religion against this danger, they must forsake the foundations of unbelieving thought and build upon their faith, a faith that rests entirely on the solid rock of holy Scripture. And when they do this in the sphere of New Testament textual criticism, they will find themselves led back step by step (perhaps, at first, against their wills) to the text of the Protestant Reformation, namely, that form of New Testament text which underlies the King James Version and the other early Protestant translations. (The King James Version Defended, page 1)​

In my strong desire not to cause unnecessary division in the camp I have focused my attention on the variants, and those numerous issues which arise therefrom, and not on the legitimacy of the different versions, which I grant most all of them.

(The reason I refrain from causing said division is that we shall be having sufficient stress and affliction from our larger cultures and governments in short order, and we need to “keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace” –Philippians 2:3 – so as to have our Lord’s presence among us unquenched).

Some folks don’t like to have the AV (or its Greek Textus Receptus and Hebrew Masoretic Text) as the standard; I suppose some would prefer to have no standard at all, and just pick and choose as they see best. I, however, have it as my own standard (coming from a long Reformed tradition of such) and defend – not the translation primarily – but the Greek text used (in our present discussion), and the matter of changed, or more often omitted, words and passages.

What I am saying is that the battle is about the variants; whether our Bibles contain all the readings as they were given us originally, or whether a relatively large number of readings are not original.

I know a lot of King James defenders think I “cop out” at this point, but I have a goal as important as this textual business, and that is keeping the aforementioned “unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.” For what profit shall it be to us if we war and bitterly strive over our texts and so grieve our Lord’s presence away that we have no strength or heart to endure suffering and bear a godly witness? Thus I grant the legitimacy of other Bibles, but not illicit variant readings.

If one wants to see how I have defended various readings, a good number of them may be found here: Jerusalem Blade's textual posts (a partial compilation).

This may be an interesting and profitable discussion, but let us be aware that it is in His presence we do so, and we should take great care not to disdain others’ Bibles – or persons – but simply seek to know what is genuine and what is not.

 

[Logan]

This may be an interesting and profitable discussion, but let us be aware that it is in His presence we do so, and we should take great care not to disdain others’ Bibles – or persons – but simply seek to know what is genuine and what is not.

Absolutely Steve, and I appreciate your attitude toward this. As I said above, I respect that others hold to the KJV out of conscience, and I think that is an excellent translation to hold to. But like you I cannot exclude other translations as legitimate, useful, or good. Possibly better in some aspects. But not everyone is like you

 

[MW]

Is it your opinion that those who subscribed but continued to use the Geneva Bible after 1646 were unconfessional? Or that my elders are breaking their acceptance of the confession when they use the NKJV publicly?

Or is it a matter of conscience?

The Confession was not subscribed. At any rate, the AV was the version in public use. When subscription to the Confession was required the AV was still the version in public use.

What the elders of another denomination choose is under the review of their own church. I am told to "judge nothing before the time" with respect to what takes place outside my own sphere of labour. I am simply asserting the whole doctrine of the Confession according to my vows.

A private matter is a matter of private conscience and a public matter is a matter of public conscience.

 

[Afterthought]

If this "CT" is the word of God in possession it has very little realistic substance, as is clear from the critics' own declaration. First, it takes us back to the fourth century. Secondly, it only approximates to what is thought to be the original. Thirdly, it requires conjectural emendation which has no support from any ms.

Thank you. To modify the objection somewhat, not the CT but those extra manuscripts that have been recently discovered are in our possession, so that it is presupposed that the word of God is in our possession through them too. When the objection is framed this way, a problem arises as to what must be done with those many variants that have now been added to the collection of manuscripts and texts in possession. But presupposing the word of God to be found in all the texts in possession, a believing textual criticism can be done taking into account even these texts that have been more recently discovered.

 

[Logan]

A confessionally bound individual or organisation is bound to estimate "the best" according to the criteria established in the confession. This is objective, not subjective.

What the elders of another denomination choose is under the review of their own church. I am told to "judge nothing before the time" with respect to what takes place outside my own sphere of labour. I am simply asserting the whole doctrine of the Confession according to my vows.

I am confused as to how these two statements are consistent, is there some nuance I'm missing? Could you please elaborate?

The Confession was not subscribed. At any rate, the AV was the version in public use. When subscription to the Confession was required the AV was still the version in public use.

I am likewise confused as to how this answers the question I asked. I don't know how to phrase it so you will accept it as accurate, but I believe you know what I mean. Weren't there those who continued to use the Geneva Bible after 1646? And if they were "confessionally bound", were they being unconfessional by using it?

 

[Free Christian]

Hello Edward. What I have read is the Bible and what It says about images and likenesses. Do you approve of symbols or likenesses or images? A question, not a statement. I read about some debating the cross as a symbol and gathered from it, though I have never approved of or liked images or anything else full stop, that anything in image form that draws our attention to God is wrong. To what shall we liken our God? Any Bible that contains images or symbols and such to represent God or the Godhead has made a mistake in doing so, a big mistake. How many children's illustrated Bibles contain images of Christ? The acceptance of images and likenesses has gained too much widespread acceptance in the Christian world. Do you know why the pagans and occult followers like that Triqueta symbol/image so much? Because to them it represents 3 overlain 6's, 666. Im not saying the symbol used by the NKJV publishers is 666, but it is used by many to represent that very thing. The movie Thor, on his hammer, is that very same symbol/image. To have chosen a symbol that is so popular with occultists which represents to them 3, 6's, 666 is a strange thing to do. In just 5 minutes I was able to find out that it was widely used as such by them. A big publisher didn't?
That those who wrote it thought "hey lets use this symbol to represent the Godhead" has me shaking my head in disbelief.
Could I ask you just for curiosity sake. Do you think that symbol or any other to represent God is acceptable? Especially on a Bible! And would you use a Bible that has them?

 

[MW]

I am confused as to how these two statements are consistent, is there some nuance I'm missing? Could you please elaborate?

It is one thing to judge an issue and quite a different thing to judge an office-bearer. An issue merely takes into account all the facts in common knowledge. A person's standing in his denomination depends on a whole range of circumstances which take it beyond the facts of a single issue.

I am likewise confused as to how this answers the question I asked. I don't know how to phrase it so you will accept it as accurate, but I believe you know what I mean. Weren't there those who continued to use the Geneva Bible after 1646? And if they were "confessionally bound", were they being unconfessional by using it?

Your question assumed historical details which are not factual, so I corrected them before committing myself to an answer. Now you have asked basically the same question.

The AV was the Bible in public use. Other Bibles were obviously used for other things, as they are now, but that is irrelevant. The best allowed translation was the AV.

One thing can be better than other things in its class. I am not sure why this should be such a startling proposition.

 

[MW]

When the objection is framed this way, a problem arises as to what must be done with those many variants that have now been added to the collection of manuscripts and texts in possession.

Who possesses these mss. and texts? I don't.

That word "variant" presupposes the mss. or texts contain something of value before the thing has been evaluated. The presupposition of evidentialism is inclining the process of criticism away from belief that the word of God is in possession and in favour of the assumption that it is yet to be discovered.

 

[Logan]

Thank you very much for clearing up my confusion.

One thing can be better than other things in its class. I am not sure why this should be such a startling proposition.

It's not startling, I just differ that it is objective to say the KJV is the better Bible. There are just too many points on which to decide which is "better". Thus, I differ in saying it is only confessional to use the KJV in this day.

The AV was the Bible in public use. Other Bibles were obviously used for other things, as they are now, but that is irrelevant. The best allowed translation was the AV.

Of course, it didn't help that the Geneva Bible was forbidden to be printed after 1644! (curious, is that where the "best allowed translation" statement came from?) Do you happen to have any references for the understanding that the KJV is the "best allowed translation"? Also, do you think confessionally one is tied to the KJV in perpetuity or just in the case where a "better" translation does not happen? I don't think this is your belief but want to make sure I understand.

Edit: As a side note, I found it interesting that FF Bruce cites the Geneva Bible still being in common use for many years in Scotland in particular, one church having the "old version" until 1674. I have done some cursory searches but haven't come up with anyone saying this was unconfessional.

Edit2: Also had forgotten that Cromwell used the Geneva Bible for the Soldier's Pocket Bible in 1643.

 

[JimmyH]

Apropos, AFAIC, to the Geneva Bible being in use, and from what I've read, preferred by many of the Puritans, it is interesting to me that John Piper, R.C. Sproul, John MacArthur, among many others, all endorse the ESV and the latter two publish study Bibles using the ESV as their preferred translation. If I recall correctly they did at one time use the NKJV, and/or the NASB but are now exclusively ESV.

I've followed threads on this topic in the past, done searches where older threads came up as well. I have observed that the same individuals are those active in threads relating to the AV and/or TR versus everything else. What speaks even more loudly to my 'ear' is the very knowledgeable members of PB who recuse themselves from the debate. That also seems to be consistent in the aforementioned threads.

 

[Free Christian]

Over the years I had diverted away from the KJV. I started with a GNB, then a NIV and finally came to the KJV. But for reasons only that I wanted easier to understand words I put the KJV aside and used a MKJV. I then asked here on this site "was there a new version like the KJV that was faithful to God and doctrine" , or words to that effect. People answered and as they did I looked into these. As well as the one I was using. But the more I searched the more alarmed I became at the blatant dropping of words, verses, butchering of the Lords Prayer and the totally unnecessary changing of words. Along with things in the margins saying "not in some mss", "others omit". To the point at times I had to ask myself "did God really tell us that or not?" "If He did then who gave these people the authority to omit that. And if He did say it then how corrupt is this bible and its translators?" Also I had to ask myself, these should be asked logically by any Christian to one self, "if God did not say these things and this Bible contains it then again how corrupt are they and it?" "How can I follow a Bible that is a mix of Gods Word to me and mans?" "What part is Gods and what parts are mans words?" "Do I have or can I get Gods true Word that has not been corrupted?" After all my searching I was lead back to the KJV. There is no way that God would not have for us a non corrupted version of His Word, no way. To let us have Bibles that are not 100% faithful is inconsistent with Gods very nature.

 

[Fogetaboutit]

I've followed threads on this topic in the past, done searches where older threads came up as well. I have observed that the same individuals are those active in threads relating to the AV and/or TR versus everything else. What speaks even more loudly to my 'ear' is the very knowledgeable members of PB who recuse themselves from the debate. That also seems to be consistent in the aforementioned threads.

If you look up pretty much any subject on this board you will probably find similar trends. If you look up threads discussing Two Kingdom, Theonomy, Covenant Theology, Eschatology, Baptism etc. you will probably see the same members being most active in all of them. This is what is great about boards like this, people have stronger interests in certain areas and have researched it thoroughly therefore you can benefit from people having expertise in different area and can help you gain better understanding in area you haven't had time to study in details. Usually when people refrain from posting it's because they do not have anything new to bring to the discussion, so I'm not sure what was being implied by this comment.

 

[JM]

My children have been raised on the AV. We heard our Pastor preach from it every Lord's Day, used it for devotionals and studies in our home. I would say, because of the language in the AV, my children have a better grasp of English do to their immersion (βαπτίζω) in it.

That said...we always have a different translation at the table when reading or having our devotionals. We also use smart phones (3 iphones and 2 galaxies) with the ESV.

Yours in the Lord,

jm

 

[Bill The Baptist]

βαπτίζω

Nice.

 

[MW]

Of course, it didn't help that the Geneva Bible was forbidden to be printed after 1644! (curious, is that where the "best allowed translation" statement came from?)

It comes from the Westminster Directory for Public Worship.

 

[JimmyH]

WCF I. VIII. The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and by his singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical; so as in all controversies of religion the Church is finally to appeal unto them. But because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God who have right unto, and interest in, the Scriptures, and are commanded, in the fear of God, to read and search them, therefore they are to be translated into the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come, that the Word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship him in an acceptable manner, and, through patience and comfort of the Scriptures, may have hope.

Am I misreading this or would 'modern' English not be considered our "vulgar tongue" , in English speaking countries ? As opposed to Elizabethan English ?

 

[MW]

Am I misreading this or would 'modern' English not be considered our "vulgar tongue" , in English speaking countries ? As opposed to Elizabethan English ?

Elizabethan English is modern English; it is classified as early modern English. You have freely quoted from a 17th century document without any doubt as to the ability of a reader to understand it from a linguistic point of view. You have even included a word that has changed its meaning over time -- vulgar -- without questioning its legitimacy.
Your own example demonstrates the point that the language of the 17th century is modern English and intelligible to a modern English reader.

For what constitutes the English language, the vulgar language of the English-speaking people, one may consult an English dictionary, and it will be found to include the words of the Authorised Version and their meanings.

The Confession says the translation should be made into the national language, not translated differently to suit each sub-cultural lingo.

 

[Logan]

Of course, it didn't help that the Geneva Bible was forbidden to be printed after 1644! (curious, is that where the "best allowed translation" statement came from?)

It comes from the Westminster Directory for Public Worship.

I do know that, ignorant as I may seem. I was wondering if that was one reason "allowed" was put there.

 

[Logan]

Your own example demonstrates the point that the language of the 17th century is modern English and intelligible to a modern English reader.

No question about that, but with different levels of ease and understanding depending on the individual. I have no problem with our standards being in an outdated firm of English, I hesitate to say the same of something that is the Christian's source of nourishment, to be read daily by the most uneducated.

You don't hesitate though and that's where I must take my leave.

 

[MW]

I have no problem with our standards being in an outdated firm of English, I hesitate to say the same of something that is the Christian's source of nourishment, to be read daily by the most uneducated.

If the subordinate standard has the ability to outlast the supreme standard on which it is founded something has gone amiss.

The nourishment should be wholesome food, which comes from a right understanding of the word of God, thus placing the priority back on accuracy of translation.

 

[Afterthought]

Who possesses these mss. and texts? I don't.

That word "variant" presupposes the mss. or texts contain something of value before the thing has been evaluated. The presupposition of evidentialism is inclining the process of criticism away from belief that the word of God is in possession and in favour of the assumption that it is yet to be discovered.

Thanks. I'm trying not to drag this out too much, since this thread is technically about translation and not text, but I'm still trying to understand why the presupposition that "we possess the word of God" is sufficient, rather than "we possess and always have possessed the word of God", from the perspective of this particular class of objections I have posted.

I believe the response on the part of the objectors would be: though scholars discovered them, the Church possess them....now anyway. The Church did not always possess them, but value has been placed in them because the Church possesses the word of God, and here are some manuscripts that have the word of God in them. Since the possession of the word of God merely refers to the state affairs in the present rather than the state of affairs at all times, these manuscripts now should be put in the class of texts in which the Church possesses the word of God. And so there is still a presuppositional basis, rather than evidential.

 

[MW]

and here are some manuscripts that have the word of God in them

Once again a pre-judgment is being made before the evidence is examined. Who says these mss. have the word of God in them? This is the problem with the evidentialist approach -- it has presuppositions but its adherents refuse to bring them out into the open.

The problem with an induction is that it only establishes a probability. The high Protestant doctrine of the word of God commences with its self-attesting certainty.

The problem with saying the "church" has mss. which are called the "word of God" but the believer does not have these mss., is that it creates a "word of God" which is not the inheritance of the believer.

 

[Afterthought]

Thanks. The comment concerning induction and certainty brings up yet another side trail, but I'll resist going down that one here.

I think I might be getting it now. Before the new manuscripts were discovered, the church at that present time had to have had the word of God. In order to accept the new manuscripts, the church would have to judge that the word of God was in the new manuscripts too, but in order to do that, the church would have to assume that there are portions of the word of God that can be discovered (and also in case of conflicting readings between the old and the newly manuscripts, that the church did not possess all the word of God beforehand, but I don't think that's what you are getting at here?) or that it can tell that the word of God is in the new manuscripts by induction. Not only does that not establish certainty, but the only way to tell with certainty that the word of God is in the new manuscripts is by comparison with....the word of God the church already has.

But does that history matter for our present, in which the manuscripts are available to the church in our present without having to discover them; that is, could we not just see even these new manuscripts as part of our Providential collection of manuscripts, and then believing we have the word of God, we look into all the Providentially available manuscripts? Indeed, weren't there some manuscripts that went into the TR that were "discovered" from the Greek church? And though the believer might not have these manuscripts, the believer rarely has any manuscripts in the original language and can have the new manuscripts in translations that use them?

 

[MW]

But does that history matter for our present, in which the manuscripts are available to the church in our present without having to discover them; that is, could we not just see even these new manuscripts as part of our Providential collection of manuscripts?

There is general providence and special providence, WCF 5.7. Preservation of Scripture falls under the latter, WCF 1.8. This is evident from the canon of Scripture. General providence has preserved numerous books, canonical and non-canonical, but special providence has preserved canonical books for the church. If perchance one of the books mentioned in Scripture but not a part of the canon were to be found, it would have no claim to canonicity. The text is the matter of which the books are composed, so what applies to the book must apply to the text.

 

[Afterthought]

There is general providence and special providence, WCF 5.7. Preservation of Scripture falls under the latter, WCF 1.8. This is evident from the canon of Scripture. General providence has preserved numerous books, canonical and non-canonical, but special providence has preserved canonical books for the church. If perchance one of the books mentioned in Scripture but not a part of the canon were to be found, it would have no claim to canonicity. The text is the matter of which the books are composed, so what applies to the book must apply to the text.

Ah, I see now. The comparison with the canonical books makes it easier to see. Perhaps I need to study the difference between special and general providence more, but how do the proofs of the WCF show that there is a distinction between special and general providence, and that the preservation of the canonical books/text is under it?

(Edit: Actually, I think I understand the proofs now. I think the real question is asking for a precise understanding of general and special providence, so as to be able to judge, among other things, whether the church's collection of manuscripts at any particular time actually falls under general providence. It seems that "general providence" would be akin to "the unfolding of events according to natural principles", while "special providence" would be the "the unfolding of events according to God's special care of them, which being a personal goal, is not what would unfold according to natural principles." General providence takes into account everything without mentioning of purpose or end, but special providence takes into account specific things filled with specific purposes and ends.)

I suppose the newer manuscripts could still be used, but only judged to be the word of God insofar as they line up with the word of God the church already had, even as it might if canonical books appeared in some new manuscripts mixed with non-canonical. I suppose that if some horrid disaster occurred such that all of the relevant history of these texts was forgotten, we would be very confused as to what the word of God is. And indeed, since much of the church has accepted the newer manuscripts as the word of God, should the keeping of those manuscripts survive the disaster, much of the church would then conclude that the word of God it had was in those newer manuscripts. I'm not entirely sure how the word of God would be determined then, since on these principles, much of the church would have to accept what it had in those newer manuscripts. Hopefully such never occurs (though it may have somewhat occurred in various periods of history?)!

It seems then that there is no difference between "we possess the word of God" and "we have always possessed it;" the former looks from the perspective of the present when new manuscripts are discovered, while the latter looks at the perspective of history in its entirety.

 

[ZackF]

I have no problem with our standards being in an outdated firm of English, I hesitate to say the same of something that is the Christian's source of nourishment, to be read daily by the most uneducated.

If the subordinate standard has the ability to outlast the supreme standard on which it is founded something has gone amiss.

The nourishment should be wholesome food, which comes from a right understanding of the word of God, thus placing the priority back on accuracy of translation.

I agree but the subordinate standard's original language is modern English. It never was in Greek or Hebrew as the supreme standard is. These are two different situations at play not to mention the greater complexity of the latter standard. I find myself getting stumped much more often with the language of the AV than the WCF.