The MEV. Is it a perversion?

[Bob H]

" More translations are better than fewer.

Especially for wallets.   

 

[Twisted]

" More translations are better than fewer.

Especially for wallets.   

Of bookstore owners?

 

[Bob H]

" More translations are better than fewer.

Especially for wallets.   

Of bookstore owners?

Bookstores don't get them free to sell

 

[Twisted]

" More translations are better than fewer.

Especially for wallets.   

Of bookstore owners?

Bookstores don't get them free to sell

???

But they do make a profit.

 

[Bob H]

" More translations are better than fewer.

Especially for wallets.   

Of bookstore owners?

Bookstores don't get them free to sell

???

But they do make a profit.

They're not the only ones. The "translators" didn't do it for nuttin. The publisher didn't make it for free.

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

IF they actually believe what they say they believe about the other manuscripts.

How could they? Virtually none of them have the training or understanding to even read, let alone evaluate, those manuscripts. I never met a KJV-onlyist who didn't fall back on operational Ruckmanism.

I think you go to the core of KJV Onlyism. Truthfully, the manuscript issue 'seems to be' a red herring. They oppose any translation that isn't the supposed 1611 regardless of the manuscripts used in the translation.

 

[prophet]

Id like to get some feedback from some in the KJVO camp on the MEV.

https://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Modern-English-Version-MEV-Bible/

So, we needed a TR NASB?



Sent from my H1611 using Tapatalk

 

[prophet]

In 2000, there was an attempt to do a similar update.... KJV2000. In fact, it stuck with the KJV and only sought to update the ye's and thee's

It was landblasted by the KJVOs. So, "no," the KJVOs will just reject any new update. In fact, they cannot decide which KJV is the right one. It makes for a great study in "divisions" and "quarrels."

What I have learned about the KJVOs is that the doctrine of the Trinity and allowance of charismatic propaganda is superseded by a particular KJV edition.

Truly a sad day, when status quo surpassed scholarship

Sent from my H1611 using Tapatalk

 

[prophet]

Since it is from the TR, I would think it would pass muster with them.
IF they actually believe what they say they believe about the other manuscripts.

Since the NKJV is from the TR what would be the difference?

Since Farstad wrote of his disdain for the TR in a book, and claimed that the NKJV editing was based on the MT , except in Revelation,  I call you out for this (hopefully) mistake.
From Wiki:

"The Executive Editor of the NKJV, Arthur L. Farstad, addressed textual concerns in a book explaining the NKJV translation philosophy.[3]While defending the Majority Text (also called the Byzantine text-type), and claiming that the Textus Receptus is inferior to the Majority Text, he noted (p. 114) that the NKJV references significant discrepancies among text types in its marginal notes: "None of the three [textual] traditions on every page of the New Testament ... is labeled 'best' or 'most reliable.' The reader is permitted to make up his or her own mind about the correct reading."[3]"

Sent from my H1611 using Tapatalk

 

[prophet]

"Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To the refugees scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia"



refugees?

Think I'll go with Miles Smith, one of the final editors of the 1611 version when he quoted Augustine, "Variety of translations is profitable for finding out the sense of the Scriptures." More translations are better than fewer.

The same Miles oversaw the sorting (and by default, rejection) of sources, including the Apocrypha, for translation use?

The result was the modern TR, which they translated into English, right?

So, yeah, lots of sources, some rejected....



Sent from my H1611 using Tapatalk

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

"Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To the refugees scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia"



refugees?

Think I'll go with Miles Smith, one of the final editors of the 1611 version when he quoted Augustine, "Variety of translations is profitable for finding out the sense of the Scriptures." More translations are better than fewer.

The same Miles oversaw the sorting (and by default, rejection) of sources, including the Apocrypha, for translation use?

The result was the modern TR, which they translated into English, right?

So, yeah, lots of sources, some rejected....



Sent from my H1611 using Tapatalk

In other words, your answer to the OP's question would be 'yes'.

 

[prophet]

"Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To the refugees scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia"



refugees?

Think I'll go with Miles Smith, one of the final editors of the 1611 version when he quoted Augustine, "Variety of translations is profitable for finding out the sense of the Scriptures." More translations are better than fewer.

The same Miles oversaw the sorting (and by default, rejection) of sources, including the Apocrypha, for translation use?

The result was the modern TR, which they translated into English, right?

So, yeah, lots of sources, some rejected....



Sent from my H1611 using Tapatalk

In other words, your answer to the OP's question would be 'yes'.

How exactly would you derive that from this^^^?


You are a strange dichotomy, Sir.

You come off as well reasoned at times, and other times you appear to answer a post without  having read it.

Check with your physician about bipolar disorders, you may need lithium, or mercury or lead.

Sent from my H1611 using Tapatalk

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

"Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To the refugees scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia"



refugees?

Think I'll go with Miles Smith, one of the final editors of the 1611 version when he quoted Augustine, "Variety of translations is profitable for finding out the sense of the Scriptures." More translations are better than fewer.

The same Miles oversaw the sorting (and by default, rejection) of sources, including the Apocrypha, for translation use?

The result was the modern TR, which they translated into English, right?

So, yeah, lots of sources, some rejected....



Sent from my H1611 using Tapatalk

In other words, your answer to the OP's question would be 'yes'.

How exactly would you derive that from this^^^?


You are a strange dichotomy, Sir.

You come off as well reasoned at times, and other times you appear to answer a post without  having read it.

Check with your physician about bipolar disorders, you may need lithium, or mercury or lead.

Sent from my H1611 using Tapatalk

You are not the first to point out that I have issues...
Sorry I put words into your mouth...what do you think of the MEV?

 

[prophet]

"Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To the refugees scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia"



refugees?

Think I'll go with Miles Smith, one of the final editors of the 1611 version when he quoted Augustine, "Variety of translations is profitable for finding out the sense of the Scriptures." More translations are better than fewer.

The same Miles oversaw the sorting (and by default, rejection) of sources, including the Apocrypha, for translation use?

The result was the modern TR, which they translated into English, right?

So, yeah, lots of sources, some rejected....



Sent from my H1611 using Tapatalk

In other words, your answer to the OP's question would be 'yes'.

How exactly would you derive that from this^^^?


You are a strange dichotomy, Sir.

You come off as well reasoned at times, and other times you appear to answer a post without  having read it.

Check with your physician about bipolar disorders, you may need lithium, or mercury or lead.

Sent from my H1611 using Tapatalk

You are not the first to point out that I have issues...
Sorry I put words into your mouth...what do you think of the MEV?

I haven't read anything but the intro, yet.

It appears to be a TR NASB of sorts, sacrificing the English for translational accuracy.
Dynamic vs Direct

I'll admit to being curious, and to looking forward to reading it through.

Sent from my H1611 using Tapatalk

 

[logos1560]

Since Farstad wrote of his disdain for the TR in a book, and claimed that the NKJV editing was based on the MT , except in Revelation,  I call you out for this (hopefully) mistake.
From Wiki:

"The Executive Editor of the NKJV, Arthur L. Farstad, addressed textual concerns in a book explaining the NKJV translation philosophy.[3]While defending the Majority Text (also called the Byzantine text-type), and claiming that the Textus Receptus is inferior to the Majority Text, he noted (p. 114) that the NKJV references significant discrepancies among text types in its marginal notes: "None of the three [textual] traditions on every page of the New Testament ... is labeled 'best' or 'most reliable.' The reader is permitted to make up his or her own mind about the correct reading."[3]"

Perhaps you are misrepresenting both Arthur Farstad and the NKJV, and thus you may be the one who is mistaken.

Arthur Farstad, executive editor of the NKJV, asserted:  ?The text of the New King James Version itself is the traditional one used by Luther and Calvin, as well as by such Catholic scholars as Erasmus, who produced it.  Later (1633) it was called the Textus Receptus, or ?TR?? (NKJV in the Great Tradition, p. 111).  In note 9, Arthur Farstad commented that ?deeper reflection led us to adhere to the traditional King James text? (p. 116).    Farstad quoted the following from the guidelines for the making of the NKJV:  ?the Traditional texts of the Greek and Hebrew will be used? (p. 34). 

Concerning the NKJV, James D. Price observed:  ?Constant reference was made to the printed edition of the Hebrew Bible used by the translators of 1611, the second Bomberg edition edited by Jacob ben Chayyim.  In those few places where the Bomberg text differed from the Stuttgart edition, the Bomberg reading was followed? (King James Onlyism, p. 307).  Price listed ?nine differences that affect translation? and demonstrated that the NKJV followed the Bomberg edition in those nine places (pp. 222-223).  The preface to the NKJV clearly pointed out concerning its Hebrew Old Testament text the fact of ?frequent comparisons being made with the Bomberg edition of 1524-25? (p. xxiii).  While the NKJV translators made use of a different printed edition of the Hebrew Masoretic text, they actually followed the same Hebrew text as was used in the making of the KJV.  In the very small number of places (only eight or nine have been identified) where their printed edition of the Hebrew Masoretic text differed from the Bomberg edition of Chayyim, the NKJV translators followed the same Hebrew text that underlies the KJV. 

 

[prophet]

Since Farstad wrote of his disdain for the TR in a book, and claimed that the NKJV editing was based on the MT , except in Revelation,  I call you out for this (hopefully) mistake.
From Wiki:

"The Executive Editor of the NKJV, Arthur L. Farstad, addressed textual concerns in a book explaining the NKJV translation philosophy.[3]While defending the Majority Text (also called the Byzantine text-type), and claiming that the Textus Receptus is inferior to the Majority Text, he noted (p. 114) that the NKJV references significant discrepancies among text types in its marginal notes: "None of the three [textual] traditions on every page of the New Testament ... is labeled 'best' or 'most reliable.' The reader is permitted to make up his or her own mind about the correct reading."[3]"

Perhaps you are misrepresenting both Arthur Farstad and the NKJV, and thus you may be the one who is mistaken.

Arthur Farstad, executive editor of the NKJV, asserted:  ?The text of the New King James Version itself is the traditional one used by Luther and Calvin, as well as by such Catholic scholars as Erasmus, who produced it.  Later (1633) it was called the Textus Receptus, or ?TR?? (NKJV in the Great Tradition, p. 111).  In note 9, Arthur Farstad commented that ?deeper reflection led us to adhere to the traditional King James text? (p. 116).    Farstad quoted the following from the guidelines for the making of the NKJV:  ?the Traditional texts of the Greek and Hebrew will be used? (p. 34). 

Concerning the NKJV, James D. Price observed:  ?Constant reference was made to the printed edition of the Hebrew Bible used by the translators of 1611, the second Bomberg edition edited by Jacob ben Chayyim.  In those few places where the Bomberg text differed from the Stuttgart edition, the Bomberg reading was followed? (King James Onlyism, p. 307).  Price listed ?nine differences that affect translation? and demonstrated that the NKJV followed the Bomberg edition in those nine places (pp. 222-223).  The preface to the NKJV clearly pointed out concerning its Hebrew Old Testament text the fact of ?frequent comparisons being made with the Bomberg edition of 1524-25? (p. xxiii).  While the NKJV translators made use of a different printed edition of the Hebrew Masoretic text, they actually followed the same Hebrew text as was used in the making of the KJV.  In the very small number of places (only eight or nine have been identified) where their printed edition of the Hebrew Masoretic text differed from the Bomberg edition of Chayyim, the NKJV translators followed the same Hebrew text that underlies the KJV.

Since everything that comes after "perhaps", is, by definition, speculation, ill categorize this drivel as spam.

Sent from my H1611 using Tapatalk

 

[logos1560]

Since Farstad wrote of his disdain for the TR in a book, and claimed that the NKJV editing was based on the MT , except in Revelation,  I call you out for this (hopefully) mistake.
From Wiki:

"The Executive Editor of the NKJV, Arthur L. Farstad, addressed textual concerns in a book explaining the NKJV translation philosophy.[3]While defending the Majority Text (also called the Byzantine text-type), and claiming that the Textus Receptus is inferior to the Majority Text, he noted (p. 114) that the NKJV references significant discrepancies among text types in its marginal notes: "None of the three [textual] traditions on every page of the New Testament ... is labeled 'best' or 'most reliable.' The reader is permitted to make up his or her own mind about the correct reading."[3]"

Perhaps you are misrepresenting both Arthur Farstad and the NKJV, and thus you may be the one who is mistaken.

Arthur Farstad, executive editor of the NKJV, asserted:  ?The text of the New King James Version itself is the traditional one used by Luther and Calvin, as well as by such Catholic scholars as Erasmus, who produced it.  Later (1633) it was called the Textus Receptus, or ?TR?? (NKJV in the Great Tradition, p. 111).    In note 9, Arthur Farstad commented that ?deeper reflection led us to adhere to the traditional King James text? (p. 116).    Farstad quoted the following from the guidelines for the making of the NKJV:  ?the Traditional texts of the Greek and Hebrew will be used? (p. 34). 

Concerning the NKJV, James D. Price observed:  ?Constant reference was made to the printed edition of the Hebrew Bible used by the translators of 1611, the second Bomberg edition edited by Jacob ben Chayyim.  In those few places where the Bomberg text differed from the Stuttgart edition, the Bomberg reading was followed? (King James Onlyism, p. 307).  Price listed ?nine differences that affect translation? and demonstrated that the NKJV followed the Bomberg edition in those nine places (pp. 222-223).  The preface to the NKJV clearly pointed out concerning its Hebrew Old Testament text the fact of ?frequent comparisons being made with the Bomberg edition of 1524-25? (p. xxiii).  While the NKJV translators made use of a different printed edition of the Hebrew Masoretic text, they actually followed the same Hebrew text as was used in the making of the KJV.  In the very small number of places (only eight or nine have been identified) where their printed edition of the Hebrew Masoretic text differed from the Bomberg edition of Chayyim, the NKJV translators followed the same Hebrew text that underlies the KJV.

Since everything that comes after "perhaps", is, by definition, speculation, ill categorize this drivel as spam.

Your opinion is incorrect. 

Only the first sentence used the word perhaps to give you the benefit of doubt concerning your allegation.      Your second-hand or third-hand source may not be reliable since also anyone including biased KJV-only advocates may be able to make changes to the articles at Wiki. 

You were given firsthand direct statements made by Arthur Farstad, which conflicted with your speculation about the NKJV.

 

[logos1560]

Even some KJV defenders and KJV-only advocates have acknowledged the truth that the NKJV is based on the same underlying original language texts as the KJV.

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).  Wilbur Pickering maintained that ?the King James Version (AV) and the New King James Version (NKJV) reflect a form of the text based upon the many later MSS? (Identity of the NT Text II, p. 1; Identity of the NT Text IV, p. 2).  Pickering indicated that the Majority Text edition by Zane Hodges and Arthur Farstad would ?differ somewhat from the Textus Receptus upon which the KJV and NKJV are based? (Identity of the NT Text IV, p. 317, footnote 3).    KJV-only author Jack McElroy admitted that the ?NKJV is translated from the same Greek New Testament and virtually the same Hebrew Old Testament as the 1611 King James Bible? (Which Bible Would Jesus Use, p. 135).  Charles Surrett, who is biased toward the KJV, indicated that at least ?72 times? the KJV?s underlying Greek New Testament text supported the NKJV?s renderings in the book of Romans over the KJV?s renderings (Certainty of the Words, p. 123). 

   

 

[logos1560]

    In his list of formal equivalent translations, William Einwechter included the NKJV along with the KJV, and he noted that the NKJV is ?based on the TR? (English Bible Translations, pp. 17, 29). 

Kerby Fannin listed the NKJV and MKJV as being ?based on the Received Text? (While Men Slept, pp. 469-470). 

Michael Sproul referred to ?the fact that the NKJV is translated from the same Greek text as the original KJV? (God?s Word Preserved, p. 39, footnote 51). 
J. G. Vos as revised by M. L. Strauss noted:  ?The primary distinction of the NKJV is its textual basis, utilizing the Textus Receptus, the edition of the Greek NT behind the KJV? (Zondervan Encyclopedia of the Bible, Vol. 5, p. 1007). 
Gary Zeolla affirmed that the NKJV is ?based on the same Greek text as the KJV, the TR? (Differences between Bible Versions, pp. 20, 66).  Gary Zeolla suggested that ?the KJV and NKJV attempt to translate the original text as word for word as possible? (p. 61).  Zeolla asserted that ?the NKJV is highly readable and is extremely accurate? (p. 68).  Gary Zeolla maintained that the NKJV ?is every bit as faithful to the original text as the KJV, even more so at times? (p. 242). 
Norman Geisler and William Nix observed:  ?The diligent efforts by the revisers of The New King James Version to produce an English Bible that retains as much of the classic King James Version as possible while at the same time bringing its English up-to-date has been achieved to a great degree? (General Introduction to the Bible, p. 599). 

Alec Gilmore described the NKJV as ?little more than a language update? (Dictionary, p. 119).  William Paul claimed that ?the NKJV is virtually the King James Version, only without the 17th century archaic word forms? (English Language Bible, p. 80).  William D. Mounce described the NKJV as the ?American revision? of the KJV (Greek for the Rest of Us, p. 264). 
In the editor?s preface of John Maxwell?s commentary on Deuteronomy in The Communicator?s Commentary, Lloyd J. Ogilvie maintained that the NKJV ?combines with integrity the beauty of language, underlying Hebrew and Greek textual basis, and thought-flow of the 1611 King James Version, while replacing obsolete verb forms and other archaisms with everyday contemporary counterparts for greater readability? (p. 10).  In The Inspirational Study Bible [NKJV edition], Max Lucado asserted:  ?The New King James Version preserves the precise scholarship of the original King James Version while updating the literary form of the text? (p. v).  Max Lucado added:  ?The NKJV is a dependable version of the classic text in language that makes sense for today?s readers? (Ibid.).  Ron Rhodes wrote:  ?The New King James Version (NKJV) is a revision of the King James Version (KJV) in modern English? (Complete Guide, p. 113).  Ron Rhodes added:  ?The NKJV significantly updates the KJV, making it a much more accurate translation? (p. 114).  Estus Pirkle wrote:  ?In my opinion, the New King James Version is the greatest English translation that is available today to English readers.  It is based on the same Hebrew and Greek texts (Textus Receptus) used by the 1611 KJV translators? (The 1611 KJB, p. 177). 

Wilbur Pickering asserted:  ?Until such a time as a good translation of the Majority Text becomes available, the best current English version of the NT is the NKJV?an excellent translation of a good Greek text? (Identity of NT Text II, p. 183). 

 

[logos1560]

  Some King James Onlyist are so fanatical that they will only buy a Cambridge edition because it was considered more "standard" than Oxford. 

Many KJV-only advocates are uninformed about the facts concerning KJV editions.  There has been and is no one standard Cambridge edition of the KJV that has remained exactly the same from 1629 until today.

In 2011, Cambridge University Press was evidently printing at least six varying editions of the KJV. Those six editions are the Concord edition, the Pitt Minion edition, the Standard Text Edition or Emerald edition, the 2011 Clarion edition, the 2011 Transetto Text edition, and the 2011 edition of the New Cambridge Paragraph Bible edited by David Norton. 

  These six present editions also differ from many earlier Cambridge editions including the 1629, 1638, 1743, 1762, 1769, 1817, and 1873 Cambridge. 

The 2011 Clarion edition is in paragraph style and in a single-column format, and its text differs in a few places from that in some other Cambridge editions [see Josh. 4:5, 2 Sam. 18:29, Ezra 4:10, Ps. 46:1, Ps. 67:1, Ps. 90:1, Acts 11:12, Acts 11:28].  Cambridge also prints another edition, the Cambridge 2011 Cameo Reference edition [whose text is said on its box to date from the 1920?s], but its text seems to be basically the same as that in the Pitt Minion edition. This new 2011 Cameo edition agreed with a 2011 Pitt Minion reduced edition in several places where a Pitt Minion may differ from a Concord edition [Exodus 23:23, 2 Samuel 15:12, 1 Chronicles 2:55, 1 Chronicles 13:5,  Ezra 7:14, Amos 6:14, Acts 3:7, Acts 11:12, Acts 11:28, Acts 19:39, Romans 11:34, 1 Peter 1:10].  This 2011 Cameo edition did agree with a Concord in at least one place where it differs from a Pitt Minion by having ?housetops? [one word] instead of ?house tops? [two words] (2 Kings 19:26).  The 2011 Transetto Text edition has some differences from a Concord or Pitt Minion edition [see Gen. 6:5, Exod. 33:9, Lev. 21:20, Lev. 24:11, Lev. 24:16, Deut. 2:11, Deut. 33:12, Josh. 24:11, 1 Sam. 31:2, 2 Chron. 13:19, Ezra 2:26, Ps. 2:4, Ps. 19:1, Ps. 97:5, Eccl. 8:17, Isa. 44:24, Isa. 59:17, Dan. 1:2, Dan. 6:23, Mal. 1:14, Matt. 20:30, Mark 10:47, Acts 11:12, 1 Cor. 16:22].  The Cambridge Standard Text edition or Emerald edition has a greater number of differences from a Concord or Pitt Minion edition.  The 2011 edition of David Norton would have the most differences when compared to the other five present Cambridge editions.  The actual facts from Cambridge editions demonstrate that there is no one clear-cut typical standard Cambridge edition of the KJV.