I appreciate the replies and want to address two further issues.
1. Why Use "olde" English?
Well, there are several reasons I appreciate the older English. First, it is used more accurately many times. There are some words which I think have to be used regardless of whether the "masses" understand them. There is such a thing as irreducible complexity. We can only simplify language so much before it begins to lose its plain meaning. Where one word is removed and 2 or 3 descriptive words are put in its place then we do not have a plainer translation, but a longer and ultimately more difficult translation.
The older translation has a broader vocabulary and if certain words are unfamiliar then we should use a dictionary.
Well not the most important or powerful argument, and indeed it is subjective, I believe the older English is more powerful and poetic.
2. Why Not Use the New King James Version
Well, I do not believe the NKJV is as closely allied to the KJV as some may think. Others have documented the exact differences and you can find them easily online or in print.
The translators of the NKJV did not just replace the "thees and thous" and update so called atiquated language. They did far more. Words were added and taken away and some words and phrases were translated in an entirely different manner.
If you live in the are and would like to meet with us and discuss this issue in more detail then please feel welcome to join us for any of our services. Alternatively, get in touch and we can set up a time to discuss these matters.
God bless.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I have been using the AV and the KNJV for many, many years.
ReplyDeleteI would suggest your own comparative study of the two versions rather than relying on the works of others who often have an agenda,
I don't think many would suggest that the NKJV is just revision of the AV. It was a full translation done 375 years later using the same philosophy and same body of Greek texts. Nothing was "taken away or added" since they were not trying to copy the AV.
I do appreciate your honesty in admitting that you use Elizabethan English because you think it is better. Your opinion is as valid as anyone's.
Rory, let me say how much I appreciate the tone of your comments. So often this area of discussion generates more heat than light. Your tone has been balanced and fair.
ReplyDeleteHere lies part of the problem. If the NKJV was intended to be a completely new and full translation then why call it the New King James Version? Surely using such a title is pointless at best and misleading at worst. I would not charge the editors with deliberate deception as I truly do not believe that is the case. I do believe though that the title is misleading.
However, things that are different are not the same. If the two versions were using the same texts, which really they were not, then differing translations must be accounted for in some way.
Dr. James Price, Executive Editor for the Old Testament portion of the NKJV, openly declares that he is not a TR advocate and does not have a problem with conflicting manuscripts. This accounts for variations in the translations.
It is not that the KJV and NKJV use the same manuscript and simply have different translations, the NKJV actually takes manuscripts outside of the TR into consideration.
While I believe the NKJV is superior to the NIV I would not put it or any other translation into the category of the KJV.
Thank you again for your good-spirited discussion on this matter.
The problem is pastor that the neither the AV nor the NKJV are purely TR translations. Dr Price has compiled a lengthly list of passages where the AV translators chose alternate sources. This is was my deciding factor in learning to accept the validity of the NKJV. Like the NKJV team the AV team used a variety of manuscripts. Neither accepted what are now called Alexandrian, but the AV team did put alternate readings in the marginal notes as the NKJV team did.
ReplyDeleteThings that are different are not the same - good point. But how far do you take that? The 1611 KJV and the 1769 KJV are not the same, so are they different? I would suggest looking at 1 John 5.12 for one of the clearest examples of diversity in the editions.
Apologies for not addressing the "title" aspect in the previous post. I assume that the NKJV, or the NAV, as the UK editions were called, was to point out that the NKJV was unique in adhering to the principles of the AV translating team.
ReplyDeleteThis will have to be my last post before disappearing for at least a week. Sorry about that. :)
ReplyDeleteFrom my studies it does appear the the KJV does stay within the same textual family consistently. If you want to forward some differing information I will gladly look into it.
The issue about differences between the 1611 and 1769 etc is not that important. The differences between the editions are down primarily to printing errors and spelling differences. To compare the different editions of the KJV to the different translations of the modern era is not an accurate picture.
I John 5:12 does have the addition of the words, "of God" but again, you can go back to the manuscripts and see the reason why.
Well, I hate to cut and run but I must prepare for a meeting.
I believe the issues we have covered here briefly are dealt with in more detail in this article:
http://www.deanburgonsociety.org/KJBible/answers.htm
Rory, thank you for the dialogue. I trust one day we may meet, as some say, here, there or in the air!
God bless.
Trust you will have a great week.
ReplyDeleteSee this link for Dr Price's documentation of where the AV differs from the TR
http://www.jamesdprice.com/images/Greek_Text_of_AV.pdf
So you will admit that things that are different might just be the same? Who makes the determination about how different something must be to be different?
Have a good meeting.
Thanks. I had a quick look at the document and wanted to reply one last time. Concerning Dr. Price's I will have to reply another day.
ReplyDeleteAs for what constitutes a difference. A difference in spelling can not be viewed as the same as a different word, the omission or the addition of a word or words.
So, while things that are different are not the same, I think we can see different categories of different.
Right, really have to go now.
God bless.
KJV 1611
ReplyDelete1Jn 5:12 Hee that hath the Sonne, hath life; and hee that hath not the Sonne, hath not life.
The omission of the words "of God" is only one of the rare 1611 typographical slips which was shortly thereafter fixed by King James translators themselves: see the KJV 1637 edition below which includes the words "of God" in the text. This is NOT "diversity in the editions", but simply corrected typographical slips due to the tediousness involved in the early printing process. The Authorized Version of 1611 has never gone through a single Textual Revision, and the NKJV is not a Revision of the KJV as the editors of that version would have you believe.
KJV 1637
1Jn 5:12 Hee that hath the Sonne, hath life; and he that hath not that Sonne of God, hath not that life.
KJV 1646
1Jn 5:12 He that hath the Son, hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God, hath not life.
KJV 1761
1Jn 5:12 He that hath the Son, hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God, hath not life.
KJV 1769
1Jn 5:12 He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.
Correction:
ReplyDeleteThe KJV 1637 edition reads:
1Jn 5:12 He that hath the Sonne, hath life; and he that hath not the Sonne of God, hath not life.
Authentic KJV Holy Bibles:
ReplyDelete1611
http://dewey.library.upenn.edu/sceti/printedbooksNew/index.cfm?TextID=kjbible&PagePosition=1
1637
http://www.archive.org/details/holybiblecontain00cambiala
1772
http://www.archive.org/details/holybiblecontain00edin
1787
http://www.archive.org/details/holybiblecontain178800edin
1823
http://www.archive.org/details/holybiblecontain00oxfouoft
1872
http://www.archive.org/details/holybiblecontain00amerrich
Comparing the Texts of these early KJV Bibles with a modern un-corrupt KJV shows that the Authorized Version of 1611 has never gone through a single Textual Revision and proves that God has indeed kept his promise to preserve his pure word. Douglas D. Stauffer, author of "One Book Stands Alone", personally exposed the errors of the NKJV editor, James Price, in front of Price's bible school's president, leaving Price speechless and the president promoting this author's book.
(see also "The Myth of Early Revisions"
http://wordofgod.0catch.com/kjv2.html)