KJV vs. NKJV

Status
Not open for further replies.

Jerusalem Blade

Puritan Board Professor
Logan, I agree that the evangelists and apostles may have used the LXX Greek when it was in agreement with the Hebrew (a ready-made translation), though I'm not aware of them using it when translating Jesus' words, though it is possible (as when He quotes the OT); do you know of any instances?

__________

Stephen, are you saying the center column references in your KJB are what is questioning the text? From whence came these marginal notes? . . . And I did discuss Rev 16:5 in my thread responding to James White.
 

Stephen L Smith

Administrator
Staff member
Stephen, are you saying the center column references in your KJB are what is questioning the text? From whence came these marginal notes? . .

It means you should ban KJV bibles with marginal notes :p


And I did discuss Rev 16:5 in my thread responding to James White.

The reason why I mentioned previously the REVISED ed of his book was that White does DOCUMENT the problem. In reality I have not yet seen a CONSISTENT defense of why one should defend the KJV at this point when it departs from all textual traditions - Byzantine, Critical and Received Texts.
 

Logan

Puritan Board Senior
do you know of any instances?
Steve, aside from possibly Mark 7:6--7, no I am not, offhand. I was trying to clarify your statement and may have introduced a confusion of my own! I should have worded that more carefully.

Stephen, if you'd like to continue the conversation that's certainly fine. I'd probably be interested in reading but I'm going to try to stay away for a while :)
 

MW

Puritanboard Amanuensis
Can I use my ESV with confidence?

The 1677/89 Confession, following the Savoy and Westminster, states Jesus is the "only begotten Son." May I ask how you can maintain this confessional truth with confidence when it is omitted by the ESV?
 

Jerusalem Blade

Puritan Board Professor
Logan, thanks – you were clear, and there was no confusion – I was just curious; I’ll check that passage in Mark out.


Stephen,

You said, “It means you should ban KJV bibles with marginal notes :p” – to which I have no comment. As far as Rev 16:5, if you haven’t looked at what I said to Dr. White (which thread I referenced twice), what more shall I say? Besides, why prolong this thread with more off-topic topics? [But nonetheless, you do ask good questions.]
 

Stephen L Smith

Administrator
Staff member
The 1677/89 Confession, following the Savoy and Westminster, states Jesus is the "only begotten Son." May I ask how you can maintain this confessional truth with confidence when it is omitted by the ESV?

The ESV has a good accurate translation of Monogeses so I fail to see what the problem is. Though, one can fire darts both ways. The Jehovah's Witnesses and like cults would be much happier with the KJV translation of 2 Pet 1:1 and Titus 2:13 than that of the ESV!
 

MW

Puritanboard Amanuensis
The ESV has a good accurate translation of Monogeses so I fail to see what the problem is.

The translation leaves the confessional statement without biblical basis. The same applies to 8.6, "the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world."

Though, one can fire darts both ways. The Jehovah's Witnesses and like cults would be much happier with the KJV translation of 2 Pet 1:1 and Titus 2:13 than that of the ESV!

Thomas Adams: "Tit. ii. 13. Here can be no distinction of persons thought on: for it is the great God that appears in judgment; but no person of the Deity properly appears in judgment at the last day, but Jesus Christ. "For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son," John v. 22: therefore Christ is there called the great God. For the Mediator betwixt God and man, is perfect God and perfect man; and yet not two, but one Christ: one not by confusion of substance, but by unity of person, as Athanasius."

The notice of a visitation from the great queen and our head of state Elizabeth would not naturally be interpreted as referring to two entities. If anything the ESV detracts from the fulness of the original by making both nouns relational when one should be absolute.

The same applies to 2 Pet. 1:1. Thomas Adams: "Here is then full testimony that Christ is God, against the Arians."
 

Free Christian

Puritan Board Sophomore
I know the JW'S definitely don't like the KJV, full stop, they like the others as they can use them greatly against reformed teachings, but no way do they like the KJV. I have had enough experiences with them to be able to say that!
 

Stephen L Smith

Administrator
Staff member
The notice of a visitation from the great queen and our head of state Elizabeth would not naturally be interpreted as referring to two entities. If anything the ESV detracts from the fulness of the original by making both nouns relational when one should be absolute.

I don't think the argument follows at all. The ESV gives the clearest rendering in the text of the deity of Christ.
 

One Little Nail

Puritan Board Sophomore
Can I use my ESV with confidence?

The 1677/89 Confession, following the Savoy and Westminster, states Jesus is the "only begotten Son." May I ask how you can maintain this confessional truth with confidence when it is omitted by the ESV?

Matthew are you referring to John 1:18 ,the Critical Text translated literally is the only begotten God(god)
which stinks of Arianism, a begotten god wake up folks, the Not Inspired Version says God the one & only
while the ESV has no one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father's side, so what we have
here is God the one & only & God;the only God in the NIV & ESV respectfully are basically denying the
Deity of The Father at worst since in this verse it is Jesus that is the "one & only" God or at best they are
maybe stating some form of Modalism/Sabellianism correct me if I'm wrong and plain english is not plain english.
 

One Little Nail

Puritan Board Sophomore
Yes there is enough truth within the Critical Text Family of Bibles to save a man but their corruptions
make them unreliable for The Word of God is needed that a Man of God be thoroughly furnished unto
all good works if the Words of god are missing it will hinder our sanctification

I would take it then that you would discard the King James Bible. After all it calls into question a number of key texts. Its center column reference in Luke 10:22 suggests an addition to the word of God. It suggests a deletion in Luke 17:36. It suggests a variation at Acts 25:6. It questions some of the text at 1 John 2:23. In Revelation 16:5 it follows Beza's conjectural emendation and NOT the Received Text. It looks like the King James Bible itself is 'naughty' by your textual standards!

Stephen you've only mentioned a handful verses the last count for the Sinaiticus by Oxford university was
25,000 corrections not to mention the differences between Vaticanus & Sinaiticus runs in the Thousands
& if you were to put the KJB alongside the NIV in the N.T. the NIV would have that many fewer words that
it would be like removing the book of 1 & 2 Peter but maybe you run out of fungers to count them.
the Nestle/Aland Greek Text of the NIV is shorter than the Textus Receptus by 2886 words!
http://www.kingswaybaptist.co.za/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=zN2i0qsJ1ig%3D&tabid=319

I know what Text I will be sticking too.
 
Last edited:

Logan

Puritan Board Senior
what's a matter Logan have you suddenly got a weak stomach

Naw, I just have seen no indication the participants in this thread would even consider changing their views.

While I'm here, you asked me a question earlier and I think you've misunderstood what I was saying on Owen. I don't see anything to indicate Owen would have supported the CT (probably the opposite), or texts that substantially differed (though that's a subjective term) from the TR. I was merely trying to point out that it doesn't appear Owen restricted the bounds of Biblical criticism to only those editions printed by Erasmus, Stephanus, and Beza, but perhaps would have restricted himself to the larger Byzantine collection. In other words, I don't see strict adherence to the TR (and most people by that apparently mean Scrivener's 1894) as the only confessional position.
 

sevenzedek

Puritan Board Junior
I put more confidence in the Reformers and their forerunners than in Eusebius, Wescott/Hort, Origen's school, and the like. Could you imagine David asking the Philistines to compile the existing sacred texts of his day?
 

MW

Puritanboard Amanuensis
Matthew are you referring to John 1:18 ,the Critical Text translated literally is the only begotten God(god)
which stinks of Arianism, a begotten god wake up folks, the Not Inspired Version says God the one & only
while the ESV has no one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father's side, so what we have
here is God the one & only & God;the only God in the NIV & ESV respectfully are basically denying the
Deity of The Father at worst since in this verse it is Jesus that is the "one & only" God or at best they are
maybe stating some form of Modalism/Sabellianism correct me if I'm wrong and plain english is not plain english.

Robert, there are definitely theological issues with John 1:18. I was only concentrating on the truth contained in the statement, "only begotten Son," which appears five times in the AV -- four times in reference to Christ, and once in reference to Isaac, who was a type of Christ. This teaching is denied by some who are otherwise orthodox on the divinity of Christ.
 

Stephen L Smith

Administrator
Staff member
Stephen you've only mentioned a handful verses the last count for the Sinaiticus by Oxford university was
25,000 corrections not to mention the differences between Vaticanus & Sinaiticus runs in the Thousands
& if you were to put the KJB alongside the NIV in the N.T. the NIV would have that many fewer words that
it would be like removing the book of 1 & 2 Peter but maybe you run out of fungers to count them.
the Nestle/Aland Greek Text of the NIV is shorter than the Textus Receptus by 2886 words!
http://www.kingswaybaptist.co.za/Lin...g=&tabid=319

I know what Text I will be sticking too.

I am genuinely interested ion this subject but think I will bow out at this point to manage some health challenges. It does mean this kiwi swallows his pride and give the last word to an Aussie :p
 

One Little Nail

Puritan Board Sophomore
what's a matter Logan have you suddenly got a weak stomach

Naw, I just have seen no indication the participants in this thread would even consider changing their views.

While I'm here, you asked me a question earlier and I think you've misunderstood what I was saying on Owen. I don't see anything to indicate Owen would have supported the CT (probably the opposite), or texts that substantially differed (though that's a subjective term) from the TR. I was merely trying to point out that it doesn't appear Owen restricted the bounds of Biblical criticism to only those editions printed by Erasmus, Stephanus, and Beza, but perhaps would have restricted himself to the larger Byzantine collection. In other words, I don't see strict adherence to the TR (and most people by that apparently mean Scrivener's 1894) as the only confessional position.

Thanks for clearing that up Logan, I'd have to disagree with you on the Confessional position as I think
the T.R. is the Reformational & Confessional Text Base chosen, anyway we'll have to agree to disagree,

I once had a moderator can a thread where I suggested The Textus Receptus should be used in a Congregations
Worship as this conforms to the Regulative Principle of Worship & therefore the use of any other Textual Sources
like Wescott & Hort, Nestle/Aland,United Bible Societies or any other Critical Text be considered as Idolatry in
Worship but I guess they found this a little to heavy hitting,still think this was logical & good & necessary
consequence at least John Knox would have agreed with me! :smug:

http://samgipp.com/answerbook/

The NKJV vs. The KJV1611 by Dr. Sam Gipp
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=J5_50wNml40

Is the NKJV an Improvement Over the KJB? by Sam Gipp
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=uvwGRws51HU&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DuvwGRws51HU

Pastor Matthew Winzer aka armourbearer mentioned that the Nestle/Aland Novum Testamentum-Graece
had reintroduced Textus Receptus readings into it's text, so I'd lke to post a link that supports this Quote:
http://www.daystarpublishing.org/Reintroductions-of-the-Textus-Receptus-Readings-in-the-the-Nestle-Aland-Novum-Testamentum-Graece.html
http://www.daystarpublishing.org/skin1/modules/HTML_Editor/editors/ckfinder/userfiles/files/Reintroductions%20sample.pdf
 
Last edited:

One Little Nail

Puritan Board Sophomore
Matthew are you referring to John 1:18 ,the Critical Text translated literally is the only begotten God(god)
which stinks of Arianism, a begotten god wake up folks, the Not Inspired Version says God the one & only
while the ESV has no one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father's side, so what we have
here is God the one & only & God;the only God in the NIV & ESV respectfully are basically denying the
Deity of The Father at worst since in this verse it is Jesus that is the "one & only" God or at best they are
maybe stating some form of Modalism/Sabellianism correct me if I'm wrong and plain english is not plain english.

Robert, there are definitely theological issues with John 1:18. I was only concentrating on the truth contained in the statement, "only begotten Son," which appears five times in the AV -- four times in reference to Christ, and once in reference to Isaac, who was a type of Christ. This teaching is denied by some who are otherwise orthodox on the divinity of Christ.

I found this over at David Cloud's Way of Life Website in an article entitled THE PROBLEM WITH NEW AGE BIBLE VERSIONS The Problem with New Age Bible Versions
were he is critiquing Gail Riplingers book of the same name, in regards to John 1:18

I don’t believe that John 1:18 should read “the only begotten God.” That is a gnostic corruption.*

[* John Burgon demonstrated that the “the only begotten God” reading in John 1:18 in the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus manuscripts can be traced to Valentinus (Burgon and Miller, Causes of Corruption, pp. 215, 216). “The Gnostics said that Christ was ‘the Beginning,’ the first of God’s creation, and Valentinus referred to Him as ‘the Only-begotten God’ and said that He was the entire essence of all the subsequent worlds (Aeons)” (Jay Green, The Gnostics, the New Versions, and the Deity of Christ, 1994, p. 74). In the Received Text there is no question that the Word is also the Son and that both are God. The Word is God (Jn. 1:1); the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us (Jn. 1:14); the Word is the Son (Jn. 1:18). By changing Jn. 1:18 to “the only begotten God,” Valentinus and his followers broke the clear association between the Word and the Son.]

This I believe is the truth on the corrupt Critical Text reading of John 1:18
 

Logan

Puritan Board Senior
No conspiracy is necessary to explain that at all. As I understand it, many manuscripts contracted common terms (nomina sacra) and the difference between the two contracted terms could be almost indistinguishable: horizontal lines written on papyrus (leaves), which have leaf lines running through them.

But it's not just one or two manuscripts that have that. At least 10 manuscripts from before the 4th century contain this, and not just from Alexandria either. And this reading is supposedly quoted by Irenaeus, Clement, Eusebius, Basil, Cyril, and Origen, Didymus, Epiphanius, Eusebius, Gregory-Nyssa, Heracleon, Hilary, Irenaeus, Jerome, Origen, Ps-Ignatius, Ptolemy, Serapion, Synesius, Tatian, Theodotus, Valentinius, and Arius.

Whether it is the correct reading could be debated, but that it was a conspiracy I find a bit far-fetched.

Also surprised at Sam Gipp references. He's been pretty extreme and unreliable. I wouldn't go to him for a defense of anything.
 

One Little Nail

Puritan Board Sophomore
I find sam has some good stuff, including strong faith in the Word of God & its preservation,there is some good
factual material you'll just have to spit the bones out .

I earlier mentioned that the NKJV had introduced Critical Text Readings, Matthew also said that it had also through the
borrowing of reading from other translations I believe, here is a link to an article which proves it has changed its readings
from the 1979 edition to the 1982 edition bringing more & more readings in line with the NASV & NIV.
NKJV Word Changes - Another King James Bible Believer
A HISTORY OF MY DEFENCE OF THE KING JAMES VERSION by Edward Hills http://www.febc.edu.sg/VPP12.htm
NKJV Counterfeit http://www.av1611.org/NKJV.html
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top