Great point! and He teaches only those who truly, and for the right reason, seek truth. If we don't find truth it's because were not really seeking it to properly use it.
Bible Problem
- Thread starter netchaplain
- Start date
To include, but not debate information about the NKJV, I wanted to share this:
The NKJV translators wanted to keep as close to the KJV as possible and were careful not to change any text (which all the modern versions have) but improvise with modern English for easier understanding ("easier event descriptions"). The NKJV and Bibles like it are the only ones that retain the entire Word of God. A translation is impossible to be perfect, but the Word of God in it is--but only if it retains the entire Word (Mat 4:4).
"The NKJV translation project was conceived by Arthur Farstad. It was inaugurated in 1975 with two meetings (Nashville and Chicago) of 130 biblical scholars, pastors, and theologians. The men who were invited prepared the guidelines for the NKJV.
"The aim of its translators was to update the vocabulary and grammar of the King James Version, while preserving the classic style and literary beauty of the original 1769 edition of the King James Version. The 130 translators believed in faithfulness to the original Greek, Aramaic, and Hebrew texts including the Dead Sea Scrolls. Also agreed upon for most New King James Bibles were easier event descriptions, a history of each book, and added dictionary and updated concordance." -WikiPedia
That is simply not correct. Here are a few examples:
Luke 2:22 - Erasmus and Stephanus have “their purification,” while Beza, Elzevir, “her purification”
Luke 17:36 - Erasmus and the first three editions of Stephanus omit this verse, while Beza, Elzevir, and the 4th edition of Stephanus include it.
John 1:28 - Erasmus, Beza, Elzevir, and the 3rd and 4th editions of Stephanus have “Bethabara beyond Jordan,” while the 1st and 2nd editions of Stephanus have “Bethany beyond Jordan.”
John 16:33 - Beza and Elzevir read “shall have tribulation,” while Erasmus and Stephanus read “have tribulation.”
Romans 8:11- Beza and Elzevir read “by His Spirit that dwelleth in you,” while Erasmus and Stephanus read “because of His Spirit that dwelleth in you.”
Romans 12:11 - Beza, Elzevir, and the first edition of Erasmus read “serving the Lord,” while Stephanus and the 2nd to the 5th editions of Erasmus read “serving the time.”
1 Tim. 1:4 - Erasmus, Beza, and Elzevir have “godly edifying,” while Stephanus has “dispensation of God.”
Heb. 9:1- Stephanus reads “first tabernacle,” while Erasmus and Beza omit “tabernacle.”
And many more examples could be added to that.
As I pointed out in post 78, the majority text is a statistical construct that does not correspond exactly to any known manuscript. It is arrived at by comparing all known manuscripts with one another and deriving from them the readings that are more numerous than any other. The majority ext is not the same as the textus receptus. They are not identical. The two differ from each other ca. 1900 places.
As the above examples show Erasmus, Stephanus, and Beza etc. all have difference betweens them. No two are identical.
Last edited:
It's as you said, the MT uses most of the extant manuscript copies for their text (3000 plus). The modern translations us only the old detracted texts (termed the Minority Text because it only uses three codex's for their translation; Vaticanus, Sinaiticus and Alexandrinus; and these are severely briefed in content with all the omissions - Mat 4:4).
Not identical but close enough to be the same in content and thought! they do not contain any transpositions or interpolations like all the modern versions have; many of which have no meaning the same as the Traditional Text. But the omissions are by far the worst problem and are inexcusable.
Again, not identical but not enough difference to disagree. I would imagine that one would be pressed to find total agreement on many issues among any group of translations. Even the three mentioned codex's have many disagreements between them (which does not exist in the Traditional Text); esp. the Alexandrian codex which is worse than the other two (Vaticanus/Sinaiticus).
Can you read Greek?
That is not correct.
For example Matthew 10:8: "Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out devils: freely ye have received, freely give."
The phrase "raise the dead" is not found in the majority text.
Another example is Acts 8:37: "And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God."
This verse, verse 37, is not part of the majority text.
And these are not the only examples. I can provide more.
That also is not correct and the example demonstrate your claim is not accurate.
Which Greek manuscript is the traditional text since all the editions differ from one another?
That is an opinion. The above examples show otherwise.
Netchaplin we not be fooled by the claims of the new King James being a mere update on the 1611 King James Bible . Look very closely at your Wikipedia quote ( and Hebrew texts including the DEAD SEA SCROLLS ) Your dealing with different manuscripts that alone automatically disqualifies it as being the same
as the 1611 King James Bible . Along with other matters such as the Thees THines and Thou’s, And along with the Ye, You, Your and yours . The new king James does away with the Ye. The prognosis is important to clearly express whether the second person is personal singular or plural. . High English goes back to the 13th century it wasn’t used by the translators themselves nor by the English speaking world of the 17th century . We know that with the introduction they wrote to the king. It was used expressly in the bible and other classical literature to bring a clearer clarity for the mentioned above. Another reason why the New James is not a King James Bible . The Ye has significance is very important. But the New King James not be alone there be other King James Bibles that claim to be King James and are not.
Last edited:
Your emphasis on archaic 2nd person pronouns is misplaced. Today, context informs readers as to whether singular or plural is intended.
There is, however, one area where the KJV has an advantage over modern translations, and that is the use of the verb to be. Shall and will had more significance than today. In the first person, shall was the normal way to express the future, but, if emphasis was intended for the action, will was used instead. On the other hand, in the second and third persons, will was the normal usage, and shall was used to express emphasis. Today will is used for everything except in certain areas shall is still used with the first person, but neither possesses any emphatic meaning today.
Last edited:
I think you mean Mt 10:8; and it's all there.
But it is or the KJ translators would not have included it. Plus, with the MT there are many manuscripts that retain this passage. The modern translators have omitted the entire verse.
If I remember correctly, we have already decided before that we were opposite with one another concerning Textual Criticism.
I agree! This is not the fault of the translators. The English language had change a great deal since 1611. Translators are simply following normal English grammar usage.
Crossword I guess it comes down to whether you believe if Alexander Tischendorf was telling the truth about the Sinaiticus . Or whether if you trust Westcott and Hort. Whilst the majority texts do differ in some regards due to their number they still have a much more trusted consistency to the truth of scripture than the Sinaiticus or Vaticanus lay claim to. Why do we continually find in the foot notes of the new translations that due to these supposed older translations of the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus that be older there is no evidence that these scriptures are genuine because they are not for in the above mentioned. When it is clearly known that both the Vaticanus be from medieval times and the Sinaiticus be probably from the 19th century. Yes why are the claims still put forth in the translations up unto the present day when the claims are simply not true.
Well modern English does not even have the word Ye . So I was thinking more along the lines of that . So often the newer translations do not show the full plurality of who the conversation be referring to . Such as when the Lord is speaking to Peter that he has prayed for his protection against Satan . But not only for Peter but for all the apostles protection. That is what is lost and why some words are best left as they are. I did mention people in the 17th English were not speaking high English. The high English in the bible was put there specifically by the translators to bring more clarity to the word of God. And not simply because it was the language of the times . It wasn’t
In the past I have looked a lot into these mss issues, one time reading Burgon, another time reading White, the issues are very complex and won't be solved by many opinions on online Forums.
There's a whole science and art behind behind assessing known existing manuscripts to determine which ones most closely reflect the autographs.
In the meantime we can be assured that no major doctrines have been changed (outside cult editions) and only a small fraction of minor differences can be found.
As it is often said, "The best Bible is the one you read."
how many has a original 1611 ..i have looked at it online it reads some what different than kjv
Most KJV today are 18th/19th century editions.
That is correct. To get a 1611 edition, you must special order it.
Well once you take out all the printing errors from a newly invented printing press and how words have evolved over time . The king James still be the same text from 1611 until now
Yes, Mt. 10:8. Sorry about that. Thank you.
I said, the majority text does not have the phrase "raise the dead." Here is the majority text with apparatus.
If you notice there is a 2 in the body of the text at verse 8. That points to the note in the apparatus.
Here is the relevant portion.
λεπρους καθαριζετε Μ vs νεκροὺς εγειρετε λεπρους καθαριζετε
This part (λεπρους καθαριζετε Μ) informs the read this is the majority text reading. The phrase νεκρους εγειρετε (i.e. raise the dead) is missing from the body of the above text. The bold upper case M is the abbreviation for majority text. The note then provides other readings from others sources. In fact according to the note there are three difference readings. Note the vs abbreviation (i.e. verses). This means everything after the vs is not the majority text reading.
The Greek New Testament According to the Majority Text (Hodges-Farstad GNT) : Zane C. Hodges, Arthur L. Farstad : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive
The Greek New Testament According to the Majority Text Second Edition
archive.org
Again, (1) the majority text and the textus receptus are not the same thing. There are differences. (2) The KJV translators followed printed editions of the Greek text and no two are exactly alike. They have difference.
Really? Please name the manuscripts which have the phrase νεκρους εγειρετε.
No translation I know of omits Matthew 10:8.
Last edited:
Crossnote as far as I know the Sinaiticus has never been analysed for its age. Though some yrs ago it was supposed to undergo such testing . Its testing was canceled. But when upon viewing a newsreel from the 1930’s showing people flipping through its pages like they were reading a newspaper brings the true reality home. You would never treat a 4th century or whatever ancient document that way. They are normally protected by glass due to their brittleness or because ink might fall off..Yes Dean Burgon was one of the earliest defenders to warn us about Westcott & Hort.. Both were decievers they were meant only to be doing only a revision instead they created a whole new translation. Again it comes down to who you trust and believe.
The MT has thousands of manuscripts that contain the complete verse.
Could you produce just one or two out of the thousands?