Jump to content

Tyndale

Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • Content Count

    99
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Tyndale

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location:
    North Carolina
  • Denomination
    independent Baptist
  • IFB?
    Yes

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I believe in the preservation of the Scriptures. I accept all that the Scriptures state and teach about preservation. No one demonstrated from the Scriptures anything unscriptural in my scripturally-based points concerning the preservation of the Scriptures. I love the KJV and accept it as what it actually is. I have read the KJV for over 50 years. I do not disparage those who read and use the KJV as what it actually is. Do you disobey a command of God as you bear false witness by falsely alleging that I supposedly hate the KJV? You are wrong to question my honesty, and your incorrect allegations do not demonstrate Christian love and forbearance. In agreement with scriptural truth, I correctly disagree with the making of misleading, unproven, or false claims concerning the KJV and concerning the NKJV. My purpose is to speak the truth just as the Scriptures teach. I may have been more kind when I disagree with another poster than those who choose to make unproven and even untrue accusations against me. You do not demonstrate that I supposedly libeled any one. It is in agreement with clear scriptural truth that I soundly reject the use of unjust divers measures [double standards] in the making of misleading accusations against the NKJV. Evidently, you could not answer my sound questions concerning a negative approach to the word of God translated into present-day English.
  2. It should be obvious that I actually accept and believe what the Scriptures themselves state and teach about preservation. I believe what the Lord Jesus Christ taught concerning the Scriptures. I properly and soundly explain what I mean by preservation while many seem to be unclear in what they mean by preserve or they do not define the term or do not use it with the same exact meaning. My statements were clearly based on what the Scriptures state and teach. Exact word preservation would mean that the actual exact same original-language words given by inspiration of God to the prophets and apostles would be the words that had to be preserved. Different words in a different language would not preserve the exact same words as was given by inspiration of God to the prophets and apostles. Any suggestion that the words in the KJV preserve the original-language Scriptures would have to refer to some type "meaning" preservation since the KJV does not actually have the exact same words as were given by inspiration to the prophets and apostles. Sometimes the KJV may give a dynamic equivalent meaning instead of a literal word-for-word meaning. Those who use the term preservation to refer to the KJV do not demonstrate that they are actually soundly teaching what the Scriptures teach about the preservation of what God gave by inspiration to the prophets and apostles.
  3. I do not consider applying scriptural truths soundly and justly straining at a gnat. Advocating scriptural truths is not being a blind guide. Luke 16:10 He that is faithful in that which is least is faithful also in much: and he that is unjust in the least is unjust also in much.
  4. The exact, specific words spoken by Paul and other apostles by means of the Holy Spirit and later written referred to those words that were written in the original languages (1 Cor. 2:13, 2 Pet. 1:21, 2 Pet. 3:16, 2 Pet. 3:2, John 17:8, Luke 18:31, Heb. 1:1-2). The Lord Jesus Christ directly referred to “the things that are written by the prophets” (Luke 18:31), and the actual words directly written by the prophets themselves would have been in the original language in which God gave them by inspiration to the prophets. The oracles of God [the Old Testament Scriptures] given to the prophets were committed unto the Jews in the Jews‘ language (Rom. 3:2, Matt. 5:17-18, Luke 16:17). The specific features “jot“ and “tittle“ at Matthew 5:18 and the “tittle” at Luke 16:17 would indicate the particular original language words of the Scriptures given by inspiration of God to the prophets. The actual, specific, exact words which the LORD of hosts sent in His Spirit by the prophets would be in the original language in which God gave them (Zech. 7:12). Would not the actual words written by the prophet be in the same language in which he originally wrote them (Matt. 2:5, Luke 18:31)? Would not the words spoken by the LORD by the prophets be in the language in which God gave them (2 Kings 21:10, 2 Kings 24:2)? It would be sound to conclude that the actual words of the prophets themselves would be in the original language in which they were given (Acts 15:15). The scriptures of the prophets (Rom. 15:26) would be in the language in which they were given to them. The actual words of Haggai the prophet would be in the language in which he spoke or wrote them (Haggai 1:12). The scroll of the LORD to be sought and read at the time that Isaiah the prophet wrote would have been a scroll written in Hebrew (Isa. 34:16). The apostle John referred to his own actual words he himself was writing in the language in which he wrote them (1 John 2:12-14). “Moses wrote all the words of the LORD” (Exod. 24:4). The Lord Jesus Christ stated: “For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?” (John 5:46-47). In another apparent reference to the writings of Moses, Jesus asked the Pharisees concerning whether they had not read them (Matt. 19:4, 7-8, Luke 10:26). The actual writings of Moses referred to by Jesus would have to be in the original language in which Moses directly wrote them. The word of the LORD by the hand of Moses (2 Chron. 35:6, Num. 4:45) would be in the original language in which Moses spoke or wrote it. The LORD commanded by the hand of Moses (Lev. 8:36, Num. 4:37, Num. 15:23, Num. 27:23), and the LORD had spoken by the hand of Moses (Lev. 10:11). When later Jewish scribes made a copy of the writings of Moses, they copied his same words in the same language in which Moses had originally wrote them. Do these Scripture passages teach or at least clearly infer that the doctrine of preservation would concern the actual specific original-language words given by inspiration of God to the prophets and apostles? A sound understanding of some additional Bible truths would affirm or demonstrate that Bible preservation would have to concern the Scriptures in the original languages. The scriptural truths (Deut. 4:2, Deut. 12:32, Prov. 30:6, Rev. 22:18-19) that warn against adding to and taking away from the Scriptures would clearly and directly relate to the doctrine of preservation and to the making of copies of the original-language Scriptures. Concerning which specific words did God directly state these warnings and instructions? These commands and instructions must embrace the Scriptures in the original languages since the very nature of translation requires that words may have to be added or omitted to make it understandable in another language. Thus, these verses were important instructions and warnings given particularly and directly concerning the Scriptures in the original languages. These verses could also be understood to suggest that God gave to men an important role or responsibility in preservation of the Scriptures on earth. These commands or instructions would indicate the need and responsibility for the making of exact, accurate copies of the Scriptures in the original languages. These commands or instructions also demonstrate that the source being copied was the standard and authority for evaluating the copy made from it. These commands would also suggest that the copies of Scripture were not given or made by the means or process of a miracle of inspiration. For when a king [or whoever] copied them, he would have needed to make an accurate, exact, and complete copy of them to be able to “keep all the words” (Deut. 17:18-19). A copy of Scripture should have the exact, same words as the source from which it was copied, and it could be tested or evaluated by its source (Exod. 34:1, Deut. 10:2, 4, Deut. 17:18, Deut. 27:8, Jer. 36:28, John 17:8, Jer. 23:28). Jesus gave the exact same words to the apostles or disciples that God the Father gave to Him (John 17:8, John 14:24, John 12:50). Just as the source definitely had to be the correct standard, proper authority, and just measure or balance for evaluating the copy; likewise, the words in the preserved original language sources would have to be the proper standard and greater authority for evaluating the different words in a translation made from them (Rom. 11:18, Prov. 16:11, Deut. 16:20, Job 14:4, Deut. 25:13-15, Lev. 19:35-36, Ezek. 45:10, Matt. 7:17, Prov. 11:1, Micah 6:11). Do the Scriptures themselves provide examples that would show that original-language words would be the authority, source, and standard for translated words that translate, interpret, or give the meaning in another language (Matt. 1:23, Mark 5:41, Mark 15:22, Mark 15:34, John 1:41, Acts 4:36)? Appeals to what was written by a prophet or by the prophets would be an acknowledgement of the authority and standard of the original-language words of Scripture (Matt. 2:5, Luke 18:31, John 5:47). Unless the preserved Scriptures in the original languages are the authority, norm, and standard for Bible translations, there would be no sound, true criteria for distinguishing between a good, accurate translation and a poor, inaccurate translation. Would not the original-language Scriptures given by inspiration of God and preserved by God be profitable for correction of any errors made or introduced by imperfect men in translating and in printing?
  5. Jim Taylor maintained that preservation is not “an attribute” but that it “is a process” (In Defense of the Textus Receptus, p. 40). Jim Taylor asserted that “translations are not preserved because preservation is not an attribute” (Ibid.). Taylor noted: “Add to this the fact that God preserved what he gave. God gave us his words in Greek and Hebrew and thus, he preserves his words in those languages” (Ibid.). Tim Fellure observed: “Obviously, it’s not required that preservation extends to a translation if the Word of God has been preserved in the Greek and Hebrew text” (Neither jot nor tittle, p. 71). Thomas Corkish acknowledged that “it is true that He [God] has not promised to preserve versions” (Brandenburg, Thou Shalt Keep Them, p. 210).
  6. Could KJV-only allegations against the NKJV demonstrate that many KJV-only advocates do not approach the NKJV with the same attitude with which they would approach the 1560 Geneva Bible or the 1611 KJV? Do some seem to approach the NKJV as a Bible critic instead as a serious, seeking reader of a Bible translation? While they may condemn anyone who approaches the KJV as a critic, are they perhaps guilty of the same thing in their approach to the NKJV? Do the Scriptures instruct believers to approach their reading of one English Bible translation differently than their reading of another one? Do the Scriptures instruct believers to show respect to persons or to show partiality to the translating work of one exclusive group of Church of England scholars in 1611 over the translating work of another group of scholars? Evidently, some KJV-only advocates may come to inspect a mirror [the NKJV] (perhaps using a magnifying glass) instead of coming to see themselves in this mirror of the Scriptures translated into present-day English in the NKJV. Do they only look inconsistently and critically at this mirror and refuse to look in it? Would they read the NKJV as the word of God translated into present-day English and with a willingness to obey and apply the scriptural truths in its verses to their own lives? Because they may come to the NKJV solely as a critic or because they may read against it, they may be unable to see that it would belong in the same family of Bible translations as the Geneva Bible and the KJV. They do not respect, accept, or believe the NKJV as a good Bible translation which could communicate to them the words of God translated into English. Could KJV-only advocates suppose that they see errors in the NKJV because they had already assumed that they are there or because they have been told that they were there based on a superficial judgment according to appearance?
  7. John 7:24 Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment. Are some possibly jumping to wrong conclusions by judging merely according to the appearance instead of judging righteous judgment by applying the same exact measures/standards justly? Would John 7:24 suggest that judging according to the appearance is excellent teaching? The 1568 Bishops' Bible did not have the name Bishops' Bible on its title page, and the 1611 edition of the KJV did not have the name King James Version on its title page. The first rule for the making of the KJV stated: "The ordinary Bible read in the church, commonly called the Bishops' Bible, to be followed, and as little altered as the original will permit." If a publisher today had first printed the KJV as a revision of the Bishops' Bible, that publisher may well have called it "the New Bishops' Bible."
  8. The title page of the 1611 edition of the KJV asserted [perhaps by the printer] that it is "newly translated out of the original tongues" while the translators in the 1611 preface suggested that the KJV is only a revision and not a new translation. The fact is that the KJV can accurately be said to be both a revision and a translation [more a revision than a new translation since over 60% of the KJV's English comes from the pre-1611 English Bibles]. The NKJV is also both a revision [a revision of the KJV] and a translation of the same original-language texts used in making the KJV. The terms "edition" and "revision" have been in effect used interchangeably by some KJV-only authors when sometimes it is suggested that the KJV is an edition of Tyndale's or another pre-1611 English and sometimes it is suggested that the KJV is a revision of Tyndale's or another pre-1611 English Bible. Some will say that the 1769 Oxford is a revision of the 1611 edition while others will say that the 1769 Oxford is an edition. Later editors/printers of the KJV made use of the original-language texts is making their revisions and changes to the 1611 edition just as the NKJV translators did in making their revisions to the KJV. Some translating or re-translating was done in the making of changes and revisions to the 1611 edition. David Cloud stated that the predecessors of the KJV were "the same basic Bibles." He wrote: "They were based upon the same Greek text and employed the same type of translation methodology" (For Love of the Bible, p. 48). David Cloud referred to the Geneva Bible as "an edition of the Tyndale" and the KJV as "another edition of Tyndale" (Rome and the Bible, p. 106; Faith, p. 510; Glorious History of the KJB, p. 102). Cloud also referred to the KJV as “a revision of the Tyndale Bible” (Faith, p. 577). He also noted: "Our Authorized English Bible is a direct descendant of Tyndale's faithful Version" (O Timothy, Vol. 14, Issue 5, 1997, p. 10). Robert Sargent referred to the Geneva Bible as the "third revision of Tyndale's Bible" and to the Bishops' Bible as the "fourth revision of Tyndale's Bible" (English Bible, pp. 197, 198). Edward F. Hills affirmed that the 1611 KJV "is mainly a revision of the Bishops' Bible, which in turn was a slightly revised edition of Tyndale's Bible" (KJV Defended, p. 215). It remains a fact that the same-type differences can be found between the pre-1611 English Bibles of which the KJV is a revision and the KJV as can be found between the KJV and the NKJV. I do not think that those same type-differences introduced in the KJV should be considered "insidious" and by the same exact measures/standards neither should they in the NKJV.
  9. Doug Stauffer alleged that the NKJV has "51 omissions of God", but he does not compare these places in both the KJV and the NKJV to the Hebrew Masoretic text and Textus Receptus from which the KJV is translated (One Book Stands Alone, p. 150). In response to this misleading charge likely repeated from Gail Riplinger, James D. Price noted: "The truth is that the KJV added the word "God" in fifty one or more places where the Hebrew or Greek text did not contain it--and that without using italics in most cases. This was because the KJV used dynamic equivalence paraphrases such as "God forbid," "God save the king," or "God speed" instead of a more literal expression in good English. In all these places the NKJV made the KJV more literal and more faithful to the Hebrew and Greek texts without undermining the place of God in the Bible" (False Witness of G. A. Riplinger's Death Certificate for the NKJV, p. 4).
  10. Doug Stauffer asked: ""Does your version reduce Jesus to God's servant rather than His Son in Acts 3:13, 3:26, 4:27, or 4:30" (One Book Stands, p. 297)? This same Greek word found at Acts 4:27 and 30 was also used of Jesus at Matthew 12:18a where it was translated "servant" in the KJV. However, it was translated "child" in Wycliffe's, 1534 Tyndale's, Matthew's, Great, and Bishops' Bibles and as "son" in 1526 Tyndale's. Why is this difference important in Acts 4:27 and 30 but unimportant in Matthew 12:18? Does the KJV’s rendering at Matthew 12:18 demonstrate that the NKJV translators used one of renderings which the Greek NT text would allow? Would Stauffer suggest that the KJV reduced Jesus to God's servant at Matthew 12:18? Does this demonstrate that Stauffer does not use the same measures/standards in allegations against the NKJV since he does not apply the same measures to the KJV's rendering at Matthew 12:18? The Companion Bible [KJV] has this note for "child" at Acts 4:27: "child=servant, Greek pais, as in v. 25" (p. 1585). The 1657 English edition of The Dutch Annotations has the following note for "thy holy child Jesus" at Acts 4:27: "or servant, minister, See Acts 3:13, 26, see also Matthew 8:6 compared with Luke 7:2 and here verse 25." Concerning Acts 3:13 in his 1851 commentary as edited by Alvah Hovey in the American Baptist Publication Society's American Commentary on the N. T., Horatio Hackett (1808-1875) wrote: "pais, not son=huios, but servant=Heb. ebhedh, which was one of the prophetic appellations of the Messiah, especially in the second part of Isaiah. (See Matt. 12:18, as compared with Isa. 42:1). The term occurs again in this sense in v. 26; 4:27, 30" (pp. 59-60). Concerning Acts 4:27, John Gill noted: "Unless the word should rather be rendered servant, as it is in verse 25 and which is a character that belongs to Christ, and is often given him as Mediator, who, as such, is God's righteous servant" (Exposition, VIII, p. 176). The KJV translated this Greek word pais as "servant" 10 times, "child" 7 times, and "son" 3 times. James D. Price explained that the real reason for this choice of rendering in the book of Acts in the NKJV is that the translators thought that in this context Peter was alluding to Isaiah 52:13, which identifies Christ as the Servant of the LORD (False Witness, p. 25).
  11. KJV defender David Norris acknowledged that the NKJV can “be classed largely as a revision rather than a retranslation” (Big Picture, p. 367). KJV defender David Sorenson admitted that the NKJV’s N. T. “is translated from the Textus Receptus” (Touch Not, p. 240). David Sorenson also listed the NKJV as being “based upon the Received Text” (p. 10). Laurence Vance acknowledged that the NKJV’s “New Testament was based on the Received Text” (Brief History, p. 92). Joe Gresham claimed that the NKJV “follows the same ancient manuscripts as the KJV” (Dealing with Devil’s Deception, p. 149). KJV-only author Samuel Gipp acknowledged that the NKJV “is based on the correct Antiochian manuscripts” (Answer Book, p. 104).
  12. That may be your opinion, but I do not think that it has not been soundly and justly proven to be true. I have read Stauffer's book, and I do not think that he makes a convincing case based on use of the same measures/standards applied justly. From the evidence that I have seen and examined, the differences between the KJV and the NKJV fall into the same range of differences as those between the KJV and the pre-1611 English Bibles of which it was a revision. There are by far greater textual differences between the pre-1611 English Bibles and the KJV than any KJV-only advocate has claimed to find between the KJV and the NKJV. Thus, I think that my point that the same measures/standards are not being applied justly still stands. I have found a good number of places where the NKJV differs with the KJV that is in agreement with the 1560 Geneva Bible, which has been claimed by KJV-only authors to be basically the same Bible or practically identical to the KJV. The makers of the KJV made use of multiple, textually-varying sources including non-TR sources such as the Greek LXX and the Latin Vulgate. The fact that the makers of the KJV borrowed a good number of renderings from the 1582 Roman Catholic Rheims New Testament translated from an edition of the Latin Vulgate of Jerome [a non-Textus Receptus source] is also skipped over. There is the first-hand testimony from one of the KJV translators themselves that acknowledges the use of the Rheims.
  13. In contradiction to scriptural instructions to apply the same measures/standards justly, it should be evident that Doug Stauffer applies different measures to the word choices in one English Bible translation [the NKJV] than he would apply to the word choices in another English Bible translation [the KJV]. Would use of double standards be just and scriptural? The makers of the KJV changed meanings in the pre-1611 English Bibles of which it was a revision, and they did not just update language and grammar in them.
  14. I think that some of editions of it have a 1611 date on the title page while there may be some editions of it that have been found with a 1613 date on the title page. David Norton observed: "Though it is probable that the 'She" Bible, in one of its varying forms, dates from 1611, it is genuinely a second edition" (Textual History, p. 65). Norton added: "Since "she went" is the commoner reading, the second edition is taken as being much more influential than it really was; most of the early editions that have 'she went' derive from the first edition, not the second" (Ibid.) The early editions of the KJV were printed as individual pages unbound by the printer. They had to be taken to a separate binder to be bound as a book. Thus, sometimes loose pages from different printings of the same size edition could be bound together. That explains how this edition may be found with two different dates.
  15. Yes, the 1611 "He" edition and the 1611 "She" edition are two different editions of the KJV. The identification of "He" edition and "She" edition does come from the difference at Ruth 3:15. The "He" 1611 edition is also known for its error at Exodus 14:10 where it repeated 21 words. There were also other differences. In appendix 2 ["First and second edition variations"] of his book A Textual History of the King James Bible, David Norton listed seven pages of differences (pp. 173-179).

Article Categories

About Us

Since 2001, Online Baptist has been an Independent Baptist website, and we exclusively use the King James Version of the Bible. We pride ourselves on a community that uplifts the Lord.

Contact Us

You can contact us using the following link. Contact Us or for questions regarding this website please contact @pastormatt or email James Foley at jfoley@sisqtel.net

Android App

Online Baptist has a custom App for all android users. You can download it from the Google Play store or click the following icon.

×
×
  • Create New...