Why I'm King James and the Contrast with a Dangerous King James Version Position

I took 2 years of Hebrew from Dr. James Price OT editor for the NKJV. At the time he was giving some responses to Riplinger’s book, and in that context told us a number of times that no matter what critics say, the NKJV was translated from same texts as the KJV. The preface to the translation also makes that plain. So it bewilders me to hear people say that the KJV translation is the only English translation based on the texts that the KJV used. That statement is flat out false.

Jonathan documents what I have also experienced. In theory, many KJV defenders concede that another English translation based upon the TR would be acceptable, but when one is produced, they usually find fault with it. It seems that the real issue is the KJV itself, and an unwillingness to allow any other version equal access in English. It seems to be more emotional than rational.

G. N. Barkman

[G. N. Barkman] In theory, many KJV defenders concede that another English translation based upon the TR would be acceptable, but when one is produced, they usually find fault with it. It seems that the real issue is the KJV itself, and an unwillingness to allow any other version equal access in English. It seems to be more emotional than rational.

Which is how I would describe Brandenburg’s position after reading through his comment section. While he is “open” to another English translation using the TR, he then provides a list of hurdles that would have to be met in order for him to embrace it. And, because no modern English translation will ever be able to overcome his hurdles (despite which text-type is used), he is a de facto KJV-only guy.

Mr. Charles.

For the record, I am an ESV user and also like the NASB, NKJV, and KJV.

It is actually pretty well documented that the NKJV translation follows the critical text vs. the KJV sources in some places, probably very few. But, if it follows the critical text in even one place, that means it is not 100% from the same sources as the KJV. Kent Brandenburg shows two examples in the response on his Blog. The translators, even Dr. James Price himself, may adamantly claim it strictly follows the KJV sources, but the evidence is in what is actually written on the pages, and it cannot be argued with.

I have read several places over the years that the NKJV translators had no choice but to adopt some of the critical text readings in order for the NKJV to vary from the KJV enough, in percentage, in order to obtain a copywrite. That may or may not be true, but it at least makes sense. It would not keep me from using the NKJV, but it does bolster Kent’s argument that the NKJV is not strictly from the same sources as the KJV (if that’s what a person cares about…not me).

Ashamed of Jesus! of that Friend On whom for heaven my hopes depend! It must not be! be this my shame, That I no more revere His name. -Joseph Grigg (1720-1768)

I don’t think many argue with the definition of inspiration. God breathed words, humans listened and wrote. God’s use of different authors means their own styles are reflected on the pages. It was miraculous. It is finished. There is no more inspiration, and scripture stands.

Preservation, on the other hand, seems to be the big issue. It seems there are different definitions, and the lack of agreement seems to drive the question of which Bible translation and even manuscripts are used.

What exactly is The Doctrine of Preservation? Does it mean every letter will be preserved until the end of time? Sure doesn’t seem like that to me, since everyone agrees that 100% agreement between the extant manuscripts does not exist, therefore we have no idea which one is The Preserved Word. What’s the point in preserving the Word if no one knows which one it is? That doesn’t make any sense. So it must mean something else.

When I read my Bible, I believe it is God’s Word. I believe every doctrine has been preserved, but I do not believe every letter has been preserved. How could I, when even in the rock-star translation of the ESV there are plenty of times my pastor clearly shows that the translators did not use the best word or words to translate a particular passage out of Greek into English. There is no perfect translation, and I’m okay with that, because I am confident that every doctrine within the pages of my ESV has been translated into late 20th/early 21st century American English in a manner that is in harmony with the original languages. I also believe the same could be said about the KJV, NKJV, NASB, and HCSB. I’m okay with much of the NIV except where the translators made decisions where the original languages are ambiguous: that crosses a line with which I am uncomfortable.

I suspect many KJVOs believe in a different Doctrine of Preservation than non-KJVOs. Perhaps that is where the debate between KJVOs and non-KJVOs should be. Prove their own doctrine of preservation is different from non-KJVOs, and the debate comes to an end fairly quickly. If one can then prove their own doctrine of preservation is unscriptural, then we come to a matter of biblical separation, for they may be adding things that God never said and then elevating those things to the level of making it an idol.

Ashamed of Jesus! of that Friend On whom for heaven my hopes depend! It must not be! be this my shame, That I no more revere His name. -Joseph Grigg (1720-1768)

Example (Google NKJV footnotes for more):

The NKJV does not omit dozens of verses, hundreds of phrases and words as is done in these other versions. It is not a loose translation or a paraphrase. However, the problems of the NKJV are significant in the light of the claim by its publishers and others that it is an accurate improvement of the AV and thus should replace the AV. The version includes many doubt producing footnotes, which favor critical text readings.

What do the footnotes in the NJKV [New King James Version] mean?

Where significant variations occur in the New Testament Greek Manuscripts, textual notes are classified as follows:

NU-Text
These variations from the traditional text generally represent the Alexandrian or Egyptian type of text [the oldest, but sometimes questioned text]. They are found in the Critical Text published in the Twenty-sixth edition of the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament (N) and in the United Bible Society’s third edition (U), hence the acronym “NU-text.”

M-Text
This symbol indicates points of variation in the Majority Text from the traditional text [a consensus of most Greek manuscripts]. It should be noted that M stands for whatever reading is printed in the published Greek New Testament According to the Majority Text, whether supported by overwhelming, strong, or only a divided majority textual tradition.

DA Waite:

“The NEW KING JAMES VERSION is the MOST DANGEROUS BIBLE VERSION On The Market Today!! Why do I say this? I say this because it uses the name ‘King James’ in its title. It throws the non-thinking Christian off-balance—especially the one who has been used to the KING JAMES VERSION for most of his Christian life. The deceptive use of ‘KING JAMES VERSION’ in the title would lead many to think that there are only a few small incidental changes in their NEW KJV, but it is basically just the KING JAMES VERSION with a few minor changes to bring it up to date. NOTHING COULD BE FURTHER FROM THE TRUTH!! I certainly do NOT call a PERVERSION of the Bible with upwards of 100,000 CHANGES merely a ‘FEW MINOR CHANGES’! …when the name ‘NEW KING JAMES VERSION’ is used, the uninformed observer right a way thinks that this is very CLOSE to the genuine KING JAMES VERSION, and so might buy it and use it. In actuality, it is a DECEPTIVE COUNTERFEIT of the real thing! While the NEW KJV borrows the ‘NAME’ of the KING JAMES VERSION, the similarity stops there!…

“The NEW KING JAMES VERSION Used The DIABOLICAL Method of ‘DYNAMIC EQUIVALENCE’ Repeatedly While Professing A Love For ‘COMPLETE EQUIVALENCE.’ …The editors…say how they have used ‘COMPLETE EQUIVALENCE’and have shunned ‘DYNAMIC EQUIVALENCE.’ This is a lie! As we have shown repeatedly in the evidence herein reproduced, the NEW KJV is replete with the DIABOLICALDYNAMIC EQUIVALENCE’!”

(D.A. Waite, The New King James Version Compared to the King James Version and Underlying Hebrew & Greek Texts, 1997, p. ix)

Another [Not DA Waite]: WHAT ABOUT THAT MYSTERIOUS MARK?

Of course the KJV uses dynamic equivalence too….shall we continue in sin so that grace may abound? God forbid.

[Jim]

DA Waite:

“The NEW KING JAMES VERSION is the MOST DANGEROUS BIBLE VERSION On The Market Today!!

Another [Not DA Waite]: WHAT ABOUT THAT MYSTERIOUS MARK?

Jim, do you really take either of these sources seriously?

[T Howard]

Jim wrote:

DA Waite:

“The NEW KING JAMES VERSION is the MOST DANGEROUS BIBLE VERSION On The Market Today!!

Another [Not DA Waite]: WHAT ABOUT THAT MYSTERIOUS MARK?

Jim, do you really take either of these sources seriously?

Absolutely not! I began using the NKJV NT as soon as it was published and the entire Bible (from the pulpit) in1983

Today I use the ESV, NKJV, NASB, and NIV

of a “pastor” I knew who decided he was going to not only replace perfectly good NIV pew Bibles with KJVs, but was going to do so with KJVs which did not include the translators’ notes. Why so? My guess is that since the translators’ notes admitted ambiguity in certain parts of the translation, he didn’t want them there because it undercut his KJVO theories. The guy was a piece of work, too—he would use both the Chick KJVO booklet (which works from the idea that it was actually the Old Latin, not the TR, at the root of the KJV) and David Sorenson’s books (more of a standard TR/ad hominem argument) without realizing how greatly these two sources disagreed.

Love my KJV, love the TR, but I must confess that at times, it is hard for me to remain civil when dealing with KJVO activists.

And answering the question posed to Jim, you could infer that I don’t take either source seriously, and quite frankly a rule that’s served me well is that any “source” that MAKES LIBERAL USE OF ALL CAPS and strange colored fonts can be safely relegated to the circular file. Unfortunately, since too many dear brothers take such things seriously, they cannot always be safely ignored.

Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.

My DA Waite quote was a follow on to … how some objected to the footnotes

I know DA and frankly he is a very nice person. I’m guessing he is in his late 80’s

So I have a complex relationship with him because we were always friendly (were in the same church together)

I have talked to him as well, Jim, and he is a nice, kind man. He one time called me just to see how I was doing… and our only connection is me having ordered a few books from him. Do I think he is way overboard on his anti-anything other than KJV? Yes. But there is some fruit to be gained in his books and teachings. I do have concerns about some of the logic that leads to the eclectic text that is accepted for today’s Bibles.

His sermons are really dry, but the way he connects verses together can be very insightful. Don’t look for what people usually call “great preaching” from him. He mostly just quotes the Bible.