Unbounded Words

Footnotes and Marginal notes are added by the translators and editors of the modern Bible translations to point out places where there are variants in the available manuscripts. When translators are aware of these variants, they must make a decision on which reading they believe to be authentic. Since the translators are aware that they are human, and are subject to make mistakes, they have decided to add the footnotes so that the readers will be aware of the alternate readings. If the translators did not do this, most readers would have no way of knowing there is a difference.

Often I come across the argument by KJV-Only advocates that footnotes or marginal notes in the modern translations are an attempt to remove, or cast doubt on the true reading of the Bible. Obviously, this is not true. Unfortunately, KJV-Only advocates use this type of deceptive reasoning often, in order to persuade gullible Bible believers that their position is correct.

This argument is especially true of the the New King James Version. As you may know, the New King James Version is translated from the same Greek Text as the original King James Version. The goal of the translators was to produce a version which would update the text of the KJV to modern English. They were committed to follow the Textus Receptus as closely as possible. However, they did use footnotes in places, in order to show the reader that there are alternate readings in other manuscripts. However, they always followed the same reading as the KJV in the actual text.

If this is true, why is there so much hatred for the New King James Version? It truly is a hatred. One preacher said the following, “The New King James Version may be the most dangerous of the modern versions.”

Why would he say that? Well, according to him, since the New King James is supposed to be based on the Textus Receptus, believers might actually believe that it is the Word of God. The readers will not know the difference. They may begin to read those little footnotes, and fall into apostasy. Or maybe, he is just worried that they will see that the KJV is only another translation, and that the KJV translators did make decisions on which reading they would follow. And that would prove that KJV-Onlyism is a myth.

Let’s look at two statements on the footnotes in the New King James Version by popular KJV-Only authors:

D. A. Waite:

“The diabolical nature of the New King James Version shows itself in their printing all the various readings of the Greek text in the footnotes. They print all sides and take their stand in favor of none of them. By so doing, they confuse the readers. The editors have made no decision as to what God’s Words really are.”

Bill Grady:

“When a study is made of the footnote section in the NKJV, one discovers a classic example of compromise. Understanding the self-centered nature of today’s carnal believers, Nelson Publishers decided to let their customers have a literal choice between three different Greek readings!…Can you imagine the confusion being wrought among laypeople as they suddenly discover their new responsibilities to become textual critics?”

Waite calls it a “diabolical nature” and Grady say it is a “classic example of compromise.” How is it a compromise? All the translators are doing is making the readers aware that variants exist in a particular reading. Then both Grady and Waite assume that the readers will be totally confused by variants. I have to believe that it will make them more informed, and not confused. I think what confuses them is when KJV-Onlyists constantly bring attacks on modern versions and their supporters.

Below is the actual words of the editors of the New King James Version which can be found in its Preface. Notice carefully their reason for using footnotes. Notice that their is nothing “diabolical in nature.” Notice that they do not make judgment on the superiority nor inferiority of the alternate readings, but simply note that they are present, and what they say. How do Waite and Grady come up with their conclusions? Maybe they have an agenda, and will do or say anything to sell it?

Significant explanatory notes, alternate translations, and cross-references, as well as New Testament citations of Old Testament passages, are supplied in the footnotes.

Important textual variants in the Old Testament are identified in a standard form.

The textual notes in the present edition of the New Testament make no evaluation of readings, but do clearly indicate the manuscript sources of readings. They objectively present the facts without such tendentious remarks as “the best manuscripts omit” or “the most reliable manuscripts read.” Such notes are value judgments that differ according to varying viewpoints on the text. By giving a clearly defined set of variants the New King James Version benefits readers of all textual persuasions.

So, the New King James (and other modern versions) has footnotes. But what about the King James Version? Why didn’t its translators believe in footnotes? Well, they did. Below is the actual words of Miles Smith from the section of the original KJV 1611, “The Translators to the Readers:”

Some peradventure would have no variety of senses to be set in the margin, lest the authority of the Scriptures for deciding of controversies by that show of uncertainty, should somewhat be shaken. But we hold their judgment not to be so sound in this point. For though, whatsoever things are necessary are manifest, as S. Chrysostom saith, and as S. Augustine, In those things that are plainly set down in the Scriptures, all such matters are found that concern Faith, Hope, and Charity. Yet for all that it cannot be dissembled, that partly to exercise and whet our wits, partly to wean the curious from loathing of them for their every-where plainness, partly also to stir up our devotion to crave the assistance of God’s spirit by prayer, and lastly, that we might be forward to seek aid of our brethren by conference, and never scorn those that be not in all respects so complete as they should be, being to seek in many things ourselves, it hath pleased God in his divine providence, here and there to scatter words and sentences of that difficulty and doubtfulness, not in doctrinal points that concern salvation, (for in such it hath been vouched that the Scriptures are plain) but in matters of less moment, that fearfulness would better beseem us than confidence, and if we will resolve, to resolve upon modesty with S. Augustine, (though not in this same case altogether, yet upon the same ground) Melius est dubitare de occultis, quam litigare de incertis, it is better to make doubt of those things which are secret, than to strive about those things that are uncertain. There be many words in the Scriptures, which be never found there but once, (having neither brother nor neighbor, as the Hebrews speak) so that we cannot be holpen by conference of places. Again, there be many rare names of certain birds, beasts and precious stones, etc. concerning which the Hebrews themselves are so divided among themselves for judgment, that they may seem to have defined this or that, rather because they would say something, than because they were sure of that which they said, as S. Jerome somewhere saith of the Septuagint. Now in such a case, doth not a margin do well to admonish the Reader to seek further, and not to conclude or dogmatize upon this or that peremptorily? For as it is a fault of incredulity, to doubt of those things that are evident: so to determine of such things as the Spirit of God hath left (even in the judgment of the judicious) questionable, can be no less than presumption. Therefore as S. Augustine saith, that variety of Translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures: so diversity of signification and sense in the margin, where the text is no so clear, must needs do good, yea, is necessary, as we are persuaded. We know that Sixtus Quintus expressly forbiddeth, that any variety of readings of their vulgar edition, should be put in the margin, (which though it be not altogether the same thing to that we have in hand, yet it looketh that way) but we think he hath not all of his own side his favorers, for this conceit. They that are wise, had rather have their judgments at liberty in differences of readings, than to be captivated to one, when it may be the other. If they were sure that their high Priest had all laws shut up in his breast, as Paul the Second bragged, and that he were as free from error by special privilege, as the Dictators of Rome were made by law inviolable, it were another matter; then his word were an Oracle, his opinion a decision. But the eyes of the world are now open, God be thanked, and have been a great while, they find that he is subject to the same affections and infirmities that others be, that his skin is penetrable, and therefore so much as he proveth, not as much as he claimeth, they grant and embrace.

So, as you can see, the KJV translators recognized that there are areas of uncertainty in Scripture. They believed that a wise man would want to know, and be at liberty to weigh the evidence, as opposed to being left in the dark. It is obvious that they did not believe that they were producing a perfect translation. It is also clear that they believed that studying multiple versions of the Scripture is wise. Waite and Grady obviously believe that the readers of the Bible should only study the KJV. They would rather have readers ignorant of alternate readings and variants in the text. They believe the reader should be left in the dark. It seems strange to me that they would disagree with the translators on this point, when they praise them for their great wisdom and godliness in other points in their writings.

The next thing I want to discuss is the actual text of the New King James Version. In another post on this blog, a commenter mentioned that he quit using the NKJV when he learned that it used other texts than the Greek Textus Receptus, and the traditional Hebrew Masoretic text, which are used by the KJV Bible. As I already mentioned in this post, the NKJV did use the Textus Receptus. However, they also footnoted the variants which are found in both the Majority Text and the Greek Critical Text. The editors of the NKJV explain their method and reason here:

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 popup notes. Although these variations are duly indicated in the popup notes 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.

And in this excerpt from the section on footnotes:

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

1. NU-Text. These variations from the traditional text generally represent the Alexandrian or Egyptian type of text described previously in “The New Testament 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 Societies’ third edition (U), hence the acronym, “NU-Text.”

2. M-Text. This symbol indicates points of variation in the Majority Text from the traditional text, as also previously discussed in “The New Testament Text.” 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.

The textual notes reflect the scholarship of the past 150 years and will assist the reader to observe the variations between the different manuscript traditions of the New Testament. Such information is generally not available in English translations of the New Testament.

So as you can see, not only did they note where alternate readings and variants exist, but they even note which Greek text differs from the KJV. But note, the NKJV almost always uses the TR reading in the actual text. One argument which often comes up is when the NKJV seems to agree more with modern versions than the KJV. This has to do with the modern English word used, and not the underlying text. In areas where a Majority text reading was used, instead of the KJV’s TR reading, then a footnote will explain why.

For the Old Testament text, it is true that they followed the 1967/77 Stuttgart Edition of the Biblia Hebraica, but the Preface also states that they followed the Bomberg 1524-25 edition. The Bomberg Text is the edition that was followed by the KJV translators, however they also made reference to the Latin, as well as to the Greek Old Testament they had available. This may have been, because all of the Hebrew Old Testament was not available at the time, or it was in question, and they used the more common Latin version to translate into English. However, the 1967/77 Stuttgart is not a new text, it is based on the same Masoretic Hebrew text that was edited later by Ben Chayyim, and published by Bomberg. The only difference is that it was edited directly from the 10th century manuscript, taking into consideration more recent scholarship, and developments in textual recovery. Thus, it is the same text. The NKJV Preface also notes that recent findings such as the Dead Sea Scrolls which were not discovered until 1947 through 1979, were also consulted.

If these facts aren’t enough to comfort you, then let me give you the words of the editor of the Old Testament of the New King James Version, Dr. James D. Price:

As former executive editor of the NKJV Old Testament, I can confidently assure you that the NKJV fol­lowed, as carefully as possible, the Bomberg 1524-25 Ben Chayyim edition that the KJV 1611 translators used–I personally made sure.

Dr. Price also noted that the differences between the Stuttgart Edition and the Ben Chayyim Edition used by the KJV translators were microscopic, and in only eight places it would have made a difference in translation. Dr. Price states that in those eight places, the NKJV follows the KJV reading.

So, you can either take the words of the KJV-Onlyist, self-proclaimed experts, or you can take the words of the man who was actually there.

I do not expect to change the mind of most of those who read this, but I do hope that people would check into some of the lies, and misinformation which they are being taught. I am not an expert on these topics, but the correct information is available.

Here area few quick resources:

www.bible-researcher.com/versions.html - Here you can find the history of the versions, as well as the KJV’s Translators to the Readers and NKJV Preface

www.kjvonly.org - Doug Kutilek’s site with many great articles

www.jamesdprice.com - This site has several articles dealing with the text by a man who actually knows what he is talking about when it comes to Bible translations.

Also two books which I like:

King James Onlyism: A New Sect - Dr. James D. Price

Differences Between Bible Versions - Gary F. Zeolla

Myth 1

Modern versions call Lucifer, “Jesus.” This is a flat out lie. There is absolutely no basis for it, and those who make this claim are deliberately being deceptive. I guess this is what you do when your position is weak, and you have no true evidence to support it. This myth is based on the following verse:

Isaiah 14:12 (KJV 1611)

How art thou fallen from heauen, O Lucifer, sonne of the morning? how art thou cut downe to the ground, which didst weaken the nations?

As you can see, Lucifer refers to Satan and the verse speaks of his being cast out of heaven. The NIV reads as follows:

How you have fallen from heaven, O morning star, son of the dawn! You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations!

And the ESV reads:

“How you are fallen from heaven, O Day Star, son of Dawn! How you are cut down to the ground, you who laid the nations low!

Now let us look at another verse.

Revelation 22:16

KJV 1611

I Iesus haue sent mine Angel, to testifie vnto you these things in the Churches. I am the roote and the offspring of Dauid, and the bright and morning starre.

The NIV:

“I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give you this testimony for the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, and the bright Morning Star.”

And the ESV:

“I, Jesus, have sent my angel to testify to you about these things for the churches. I am the root and the descendant of David, the bright morning star.”

So, as you can see the NIV refers to LUCIFER in the same way in Isaiah 14:12 as it does Jesus in Revelation 22:16. Right? No! That is not correct. The NIV uses the term “morning star, son of the dawn” in Isaiah 14:12, while it uses “the bright Morning Star” in Revelation 22:16. So, there is a clear distinction between the two. The NIV is in no way trying to suggest that Jesus and Satan are the same person. And the ESV and other modern versions are even clearer with their choice of wording. So, why not just use Lucifer? Well, the translators of the modern versions are trying to be accurate to the original language. As you know the Old Testament was not given in English but in Hebrew. In the Hebrew Satan is being referred to as the morning star, or the day star. Either one fits because of the flexibility in the language. But the text literally says “morning star” or “day star.” This was confirmed by the translators of the KJV 1611 by the margin note in which they give the literal translation of “O day-starre.” So, we have proof that the modern versions are correct in their translation. But why did the KJV translators use “Lucifer?” Well, as you may know, Lucifer is a Latin word with a meaning which refers to “something that bears light.” Jerome chose to use the word “Lucifer” to translate the “day star” in Isaiah 14:12. Since there was no English Bible produced for centuries after that, the word “Lucifer” became synonymous with Satan. Then along comes the first English versions, and when they came to this verse they decided that there was no reason to change the word, because everyone already knows who Lucifer is. Good idea, right? Well, it wasn’t a bad one, but now people are not aware that the text actually says “morning star,” and they think that Lucifer was a name given by God. In reality, they only know a transliteration of a translation. So, by using the actual words “morning star” or “day star” the modern versions are more accurate. The point of this is that many of those who teach KJV-Onlyism use false, underhanded methods to prove their points. In this case, it is pure deception.

Myth 2

The second myth deals with the use of the word Calvary. The myth is: “Calvary is the name of the place Jesus was crucified. However some modern versions are trying to change the word Calvary.” Is that true? Well, lets look at the following verses:

Matthew 27:33 And when they were come vnto a place called Golgotha, that is to say, a place of a skull,

Mark 15:22 And they bring him vnto the place Golgotha, which is, being interpreted, the place of a skull.

John 19:17 And he bearing his crosse, went foorth into a place called the place of a skull, which is called in the Hebrewe, Golgotha:

It is very important to note here that in each of the above accounts the writer uses the word “Golgotha,” and in John we see specifically that this is a Hebrew word. Also, each of these accounts explain to us that the word Golgotha means “the place of a skull.” Now let’s look at Luke 23:33

And when they were come to the place which is called Caluarie, there they crucified him, and the malefactors, one on the right hand, and the other on the left.

Here the King James translators used the word “Calvary,” and there is no explanation of what the word means. Why was the word “Golgotha” used in the other three accounts but “Calvary” in this one? Well, this is basically a case of familiarity, just as was with the “Lucifer” case. You see, the Greek text in Luke uses the word “kranion,” in this verse, but did not mention the Hebrew word “Golgotha.” The word “kranion” is the word from which we get the word “cranium” and it means “the skull.” The other verses mentioned use the word “kranion” to explain what “Golgotha” refers to. Now let us look and see how the modern versions translate the word “kranion.”

NIV

When they came to the place called the Skull, there they crucified him, along with the criminals–one on his right, the other on his left.

HCSB

When they arrived at the place called The Skull, they crucified Him there, along with the criminals, one on the right and one on the left.

ESV

And when they came to the place that is called The Skull, there they crucified him, and the criminals, one on his right and one on his left.

So it is clear that each of these versions are true to the text, while only the KJV uses a word not found in the text. What does the word “Calvary” mean? Well, it happens to be Latin. Yeah, just like “Lucifer” was Latin, so is “Calvary.” Jerome, while translating the Latin Vulgate came across the word “kranion” and picked the Latin word “Calvary,” which means “the skull,” and since the Bible which was used for hundreds of years was based on Jerome, the word “Calvary” became common knowledge, and everyone knew it to be the place where Jesus died. So along comes the early English translations, and they must determine how to translate the word “kranion.” Since everyone knows the place where Jesus was crucified as “Calvary” they chose to stick with it. Instead of a translation, we once again have a transliteration of a translation. Why does this matter? It only matters because some KJV-Only advocates make a big deal about the versions which use the correct translation of the word “kranion.” I have heard preachers speaking of this matter, and they argue that it is totally foolish for the new translations to use the term “the Skull,” and speak of how stupid it would be to sing the song “At Calvary” as “At the Skull.” Well, if that is the best they’ve got, then they’ve got nothing. That is the most ridiculous argument I have ever heard. Because of the familiarity of a song, we should sacrifice accuracy in the Word of God? I don’t think so. I would rather know what the text actually says, than what Jerome wanted it to say. Give me a break!!! These two myths are even more hypocritical because KJV-Only advocates are using Jerome’s Latin translation to support the KJV translation. Yet, if you know anything about the argument, you will know that they consider Jerome an infidel, and consider his translations to be corrupt. This is a big part of why they reject the modern versions. When it supports their position he is okay, but when it is contrary to their position he isn’t. Dudes, you can’t have it both ways, either Jerome’s work is good, or it is bad. And when the KJV is more literal it is right, but when the modern version is more literal, then the KJV is still right? No!!! Either it should be as literal as possible, or not. Or, you have to admit that translators actually have some flexibility in translating the Word of God. Oh wait, that would mean that the KJV is not the only Word of God in English. Ahh, you’ll never admit that. These are just two more examples of how ridiculous the KJV-Only arguments are, and shows how far they will go, and how deceptive they will be to prove their points. Anyway, thanks for reading.