Thoughts about using a KJV update?

[Halbhh]

No, I don't see what is lost. "In the beginning was the Word" is actually an unusual sentence structure. It's much clearer to say "In the beginning the Word already existed". All the translations above are actually repeating Genesis 1:1, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth", including the NLT. "... was the Word" is strange wording.

The Orthodox Jewish Bible translates Genesis 1:1 as " In the beginning Elohim created hashomayim (the heavens, Himel) and haaretz (the earth)." and John 1:1 as "Bereshis (in the Beginning) was the Dvar Hashem [YESHAYAH 55:11; BERESHIS 1:3], and the Dvar Hashem was agav (along with, etzel, Mishle 8:30;30:4) Hashem, and the Dvar Hashem was nothing less, by nature, than Elohim! [Psa 56:11(10); Yn 17:5; Rev. 19:13 i.e., the Ma’amar Memra]. How's that for clarity? Or do they have it "wrong" also?

Or God's Word translation: "In the beginning the Word already existed."

J B Phillips Translation: " At the beginning God expressed himself. That personal expression, that word, was with God, and was God, and he existed with God from the beginning."

BTW, the Greek literally says "In beginning was Word ..." (There is no "the")

The NET footnote on John 1:1 says, "In the beginning. The search for the basic “stuff” out of which things are made was the earliest one in Greek philosophy. It was attended by the related question of “What is the process by which the secondary things came out of the primary one (or ones)?,” or in Aristotelian terminology, “What is the ‘beginning’ (same Greek word as beginning, John 1:1) and what is the origin of the things that are made?” In the New Testament the word usually has a temporal sense, but even BDAG 138 s.v. ἀρχή 3 lists a major category of meaning as “the first cause.” For John, the words “In the beginning” are most likely a conscious allusion to the opening words of Genesis—“In the beginning.” Other concepts which occur prominently in Gen 1 are also found in John’s prologue: “life” (1:4) “light” (1:4) and “darkness” (1:5). Gen 1 describes the first (physical) creation; John 1 describes the new (spiritual) creation. But this is not to play off a false dichotomy between “physical” and “spiritual”; the first creation was both physical and spiritual. The new creation is really a re-creation, of the spiritual (first) but also the physical. (In spite of the common understanding of John’s “spiritual” emphasis, the “physical” re-creation should not be overlooked; this occurs in John 2 with the changing of water into wine, in John 11 with the resurrection of Lazarus, and the emphasis of John 20-21 on the aftermath of Jesus’ own resurrection.)

How about The Passion Translation? " In the very beginning the Living Expression was already there. And the Living Expression was with God, yet fully God." IMHO this clarifies the Greek concept of "the Word" really well (if you understand the concept!)

Or the Worldwide English Translation, "The Word already was, way back before anything began to be. The Word and God were together. The Word was God."

Or the Wycliffe Bible, "In the beginning was the word, and the word was at God, and God was the word. [In the beginning was the word, that is, God's Son, and the word was at God, and God was the word.] How's that for clarity!

The NLT is a wonderful translation for those people who need an explanation of the Bible's meaning. It is excellent for that purpose, even if other translations differ. They are all attempting to translate not only the Koine Greek, but what it means. Unless you think that Jesus was actually a word -- a component of language, which He clearly wasn't; He was and is a person -- there needs to be an interpretation, either in your mind or having it explained, as the NLT and The Passion Translation do so well.

I think this really interesting and deep topic belongs (as you'd agree) in its own thread or own discussion (it's plenty important enough!). Would you like me to respond in a PM or should we open a new thread?

 

[pescador]

I think this really interesting and deep topic belongs (as you'd agree) in its own thread or own discussion (it's plenty important enough!). Would you like me to respond in a PM or should we open a new thread?

I think you're talking about the concept of "the Word"; correct? Can you open a new thread to discuss this? BTW, I'm no expert on this, but I do have some interesting thoughts...

 

[Halbhh]

I think you're talking about the concept of "the Word"; correct? Can you open a new thread to discuss this? BTW, I'm no expert on this, but I do have some interesting thoughts...

Ok, I'm trying to figure out whether better to PM the discussion or have a thread, as I don't want people to show up and argue a lot.

I'd like to ask a pose several useful questions to help open new views/angles on the related aspects.

 

[robycop3]

The NKJV is a corrupt version, leaves out whole verses that are in the original KJV. Doing that makes it a whole 'other' translation, and not just another 1611 KJV. Later Bible versions of the New Testament don't even use the same Greek manuscripts the KJV translators used. So the modern Bible versions can't even be equally compared to the KJV.

Please show us a verse left outta the NKJV. And while you're at it, ponder the FACT that the KJV has many goofs & booboos such as "Easter" in Acts 12:4. And, in disobedience to God's command , it ADDS to God's word, with such as the words "and shalt be" in Rev. 16:5, which are not found in any ancient Scriptural manuscript of Rev in that verse. (The NKJV repeats that goof.)

 

[Davy]

Please show us a verse left outta the NKJV. And while you're at it, ponder the FACT that the KJV has many goofs & booboos such as "Easter" in Acts 12:4. And, in disobedience to God's command , it ADDS to God's word, with such as the words "and shalt be" in Rev. 16:5, which are not found in any ancient Scriptural manuscript of Rev in that verse. (The NKJV repeats that goof.)

See Luke 4 and tell me what Satan said that was left out. I'm sure you can look at both the KJV and the NKJV and compare there. Which version omits something Satan said there.

 

[robycop3]

See Luke 4 and tell me what Satan said that was left out. I'm sure you can look at both the KJV and the NKJV and compare there. Which version omits something Satan said there.

The KJV has Satan saying "If thou therefore wilt worship me" while the NKJV has him saying "if you will worship BEFORE me". Small difference, not enough to be concerned with. That's not a verse left out.

 

[Davy]

Might want to try again...

KJV Bible:
Luke 4:9-12
9 And he brought Him to Jerusalem, and set Him on a pinnacle of the temple, and said unto Him, "If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down from hence:
10 For it is written, 'He shall give His angels charge over thee, to keep thee:
11 And in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone.'"
12 And Jesus answering said unto him, "It is said, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God."
KJV

NKJV Bible:
Luke 4:9-12
9 Then he brought Him to Jerusalem, set Him on the pinnacle of the temple, and said to Him, "If You are the Son of God, throw Yourself down from here.
10 For it is written: 'He shall give His angels charge over you,
To keep you,'
11 and, 'In their hands they shall bear you up,
Lest you dash your foot against a stone.'"
12 And Jesus answered and said to him, "It has been said, 'You shall not tempt the Lord your God.'"
NKJV

Do you not see removal the NKJV did in that 11th verse, when Satan was quoting from Psalms 91:11-12 almost perfectly?

Thing is, Satan did not quote Psalms 91:11-12 perfectly. He ADDED that "lest at any time" phrase which changes the condition of that Psalms 91 passage. That is to show us one of the ways Satan twists God's Word in temptation. That is why Lord Jesus told him, "Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God."

I once did a Bible study with a friend who invited me, and he was using the NKJV when it first came out. I was using the KJV. I couldn't count on my hands the number of times he got disgusted when I read from the KJV I was using, because the NKJV he was using read differently in many passages. This example above was one of them.

 

[robycop3]

Quite a small difference, which doesn't affect doctrine. Satan knew that Jesus knew the Psalm word-for-word anyway, & he wasn't gonna sneak something past Jesus.
Did Jesus correct Satan? No, He simply told him, "you shall not dare or test the Lord your God."

 

[pescador]

Of course there are differences between any two translations, in this case the KJV and the NKJV. There has never been, nor will there ever be, an exact (whatever that means) translation from the ancient languages to a modern language. The ancient Hebrew, Aramaic, and Koine Greek languages -- and indeed their cultures -- are so very different from ours as to be mind-boggling. "Language is culture".

Additionally, the thousands of fragments of writing from Bible times have shed additional light on the meaning of the texts.

If you want to go with a KJV update, go for it. If not, that's okay too.

 

[GreekOrthodox]

Might want to try again...

KJV Bible:
Luke 4:9-12

11 And in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone.'"

NKJV Bible:
Luke 4:9-12

11 and, 'In their hands they shall bear you up,
Lest you dash your foot against a stone.'"

Thing is, Satan did not quote Psalms 91:11-12 perfectly. He ADDED that "lest at any time" phrase which changes the condition of that Psalms 91 passage. That is to show us one of the ways Satan twists God's Word in temptation. That is why Lord Jesus told him, "Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God."

1904 Byzantine Majority Text
καὶ ὅτι ἐπὶ χειρῶν ἀροῦσί σε, μήποτε προσκόψῃς πρὸς λίθον τὸν πόδα σου
"lest at any time" does not exist in the Greek Majority text

 

[Davy]

1904 Byzantine Majority Text
καὶ ὅτι ἐπὶ χειρῶν ἀροῦσί σε, μήποτε προσκόψῃς πρὸς λίθον τὸν πόδα σου
"lest at any time" does not exist in the Greek Majority text

It's in the New Testament texts the KJV translators used, and that happens to be the Majority Texts, or Received Texts. If it were not in those texts for the KJV, Dr. James Strong would have not shown the below mepote nor assigned no. 3379 to it.


NT:3379
mepote (may'-pot-eh); or me pote (may pot'-eh); from NT:3361 and NT:4218; not ever; also if (or lest) ever (or perhaps):

KJV - if peradventure, lest (at any time, haply), not at all, whether or not.
(Biblesoft's New Exhaustive Strong's Numbers and Concordance with Expanded Greek-Hebrew Dictionary. Copyright © 1994, 2003, 2006, 2010 Biblesoft, Inc. and International Bible Translators, Inc.)


What the editors of the New King James version did obviously, was to think "at any time" in the KJV was an error, since it is not in the Psalms 91 Scripture. They're right about that phrase not being in the Psalms 91 Scripture, but that's not the point. The point is that Satan ADDED... that phrase to Psalms 91 when he quoted it, and THAT is the Message there!

And your trying to say that is not in the Greek the KJV translators used, when it most definitely is, shows you are in error.

 

[GreekOrthodox]

It's in the New Testament texts the KJV translators used, and that happens to be the Majority Texts, or Received Texts. If it were not in those texts for the KJV, Dr. James Strong would have not shown the below mepote nor assigned no. 3379 to it.

And your trying to say that is not in the Greek the KJV translators used, when it most definitely is, shows you are in error.

The TR is NOT the same as Byzantine Majority. This is the from the Preface of the NJKV by the Executive Editor of the NKJV, Arthur L. Farstad.

"A third viewpoint of New Testament scholarship holds that the best text is based on the consensus of the majority of existing Greek manuscripts. This text is called the Majority Text. Most of these manuscripts are in substantial agreement. Even though many are late, and none is earlier than the fifth century, usually their readings are verified by papyri, ancient versions, quotations from the early church fathers, or a combination of these. The Majority Text is similar to the Textus Receptus, but it corrects those readings which have little or no support in the Greek manuscript tradition.

...

In light of these facts, and also because the New King James Version is the fifth revision of a historic document translated from specific Greek texts, the editors decided to retain the traditional text in the body of the New Testament and to indicate major Critical and Majority Text variant readings in the footnotes. Although these variations are duly indicated in the footnotes of the present edition, it is most important to emphasize that fully eighty-five percent of the New Testament text is the same in the Textus Receptus, the Alexandrian Text, and the Majority Text."

The New King James Version: Preface​

 

[Davy]

The TR is NOT the same as Byzantine Majority. This is the from the Preface of the NJKV by the Executive Editor of the NKJV, Arthur L. Farstad.

"A third viewpoint of New Testament scholarship holds that the best text is based on the consensus of the majority of existing Greek manuscripts. This text is called the Majority Text. Most of these manuscripts are in substantial agreement. Even though many are late, and none is earlier than the fifth century, usually their readings are verified by papyri, ancient versions, quotations from the early church fathers, or a combination of these. The Majority Text is similar to the Textus Receptus, but it corrects those readings which have little or no support in the Greek manuscript tradition.

...

In light of these facts, and also because the New King James Version is the fifth revision of a historic document translated from specific Greek texts, the editors decided to retain the traditional text in the body of the New Testament and to indicate major Critical and Majority Text variant readings in the footnotes. Although these variations are duly indicated in the footnotes of the present edition, it is most important to emphasize that fully eighty-five percent of the New Testament text is the same in the Textus Receptus, the Alexandrian Text, and the Majority Text."

The New King James Version: Preface​

You have been misled by those trying to create excuses (false) for their NKJV edition which omits pieces in the original manuscripts.

The Majority Texts are... the Textus Receptus. The Textus Receptus, or 'Received Texts', are called the 'Majority Texts' because they make up the majority of Greek New Testament manuscripts.

 

[GreekOrthodox]

The TR is a subset of the Byzantine text types from that Erasmus used. The Greek Orthodox are still using 4th century texts and even our services havent changed much for over 1000 years. We still use hymns that date back to the 2nd century.

The King James Version and New King James Version are based on the Textus Receptus. The Textus Receptus is very similar to the Majority Text, but there are in fact hundreds of differences between the Majority Text and the Textus Receptus. The Textus Receptus was compiled and edited by Erasmus in the 16th century. Erasmus used several Greek manuscripts, which were eastern / Byzantine in nature. This explains why the Textus Receptus is very similar to the Majority Text. However, Erasmus by no means had access to all of the Greek manuscripts, so there was no way he could develop a true Majority Text. The Textus Receptus is based on a very limited number of manuscripts, all of them eastern, and all of them dating to around the 12th century. As a result, compared to the Electic Text and the Majority Text, the Textus Receptus is far less likely to have the most accurate reading. What is the Majority Text? | GotQuestions.org

 

[Davy]

The TR is a subset of the Byzantine text types from that Erasmus used. The Greek Orthodox are still using 4th century texts and even our services havent changed much for over 1000 years. We still use hymns that date back to the 2nd century.

The King James Version and New King James Version are based on the Textus Receptus. The Textus Receptus is very similar to the Majority Text, but there are in fact hundreds of differences between the Majority Text and the Textus Receptus. The Textus Receptus was compiled and edited by Erasmus in the 16th century. Erasmus used several Greek manuscripts, which were eastern / Byzantine in nature. This explains why the Textus Receptus is very similar to the Majority Text. However, Erasmus by no means had access to all of the Greek manuscripts, so there was no way he could develop a true Majority Text. The Textus Receptus is based on a very limited number of manuscripts, all of them eastern, and all of them dating to around the 12th century. As a result, compared to the Electic Text and the Majority Text, the Textus Receptus is far less likely to have the most accurate reading. What is the Majority Text? | GotQuestions.org

Your source is corrupt.


From What is the Textus Receptus? - Textus Receptus Bibles

• Textus Receptus is the name given to a series of Byzantine based Greek texts of the New Testament printed between 1500 and 1900
• The name Textus Receptus was first used, to refer to editions of the Greek New Testament published by the Elzevir Brothers in 1633. The name has been retrospectively applied to all the printed Greek texts of the same Byzantine text-type
• Textus Receptus was established on the Byzantine text-type, also called the Majority Text, which represents over 90% of the 5,800+ Greek manuscripts of the New Testament still in existence today

Textus Receptus contains the translation base for the first Greek translation of the New Testament into English by William Tyndale and is the textual base for the Bishops Bible, the Geneva Bible and the King James Bible.

 

[GreekOrthodox]

I'm Greek Orthodox, why would I use a translation? Other than my spoken Greek drives the natives crazy.

Why would I use anything that the corrupt west produced? (Since you want to use "corrupt")

 

[Davy]

I'm Greek Orthodox, why would I use a translation? Other than my spoken Greek drives the natives crazy.

Why would I use anything that the corrupt west produced? (Since you want to use "corrupt")

I'm talking about that website source where you pulled from being corrupt, GotQuestions.org.

 

[robycop3]

WHICH EDITION of the TR is the CORRECT one. It's been revised over 30 times. Ole Rastus revised it himself not long after he published the first edition. And Dean John Burgon wrote that it could stand another thorough revision.

 

[GreekOrthodox]

WHICH EDITION of the TR is the CORRECT one. It's been revised over 30 times. Ole Rastus revised it himself not long after he published the first edition. And Dean John Burgon wrote that it could stand another thorough revision.

Roby, any idea if is this obsession with the TR and KJV is uniquely American?

 

[robycop3]

Roby, any idea if is this obsession with the TR and KJV is uniquely American?

The current KJVO myth started in the USA, as is documented in another thread. The TR thingie likely started in Britain or elsewhere in Europe before the USA existed.