King James Only

[Cammie]

I'm sorry, but that is ridiculous to state that Gail Riplinger started a movement that believes in the King James Bibles as the preserved word of God. The 1611 translators themselves believed that they were translating the very words of God. Have you read their letter in the preface?

 

 

Oh, I don't mean to say she started the movement towards using the KJV.  Clearly people used the KJV for hundreds of years before she came along.

 

However, she appears to have ignited the whole "satan is at the root of the other translations" and "all other translations are part of a new age conspiracy" that is at the heart of the rise of the KJV only movement in Evangelical circles in the present day.

 

Of COURSE the 1611 translators beleived they were translating the very words of God.  Wouldn't most Christian translators believe that?

[Teannika]

I'm sorry but none of these are doctrinal issues. And all of the "missing" verses are in the footnotes of my NIV so they are there, but with a note that says that the most reliable manuscripts do not have them. Some of these examples are omissions of a sentence that has nothing to do with any doctrinal teaching, like "but Silas decided to remain there."

 

There have been manuscript discoveries since the KJV. The Dead Sea Scrolls for example had some older and more complete manuscripts than anyone had ever seen. That is how extant manuscripts are "rated," if you will, for accuracy. The older they are the closer to the source. I have never heard a Bible scholar or translator say that the KJV is the standard and that all Bibles are compared to it. The standard is the original document and since we don't have those we have to rely on the oldest and most complete.

 

Please understand that I don't hate the KJV. It is a literary masterpiece and God has used it greatly to bring people to salvation. But He has undeniably used other versions also.

 

How can you know that older means better?

[Teannika]

Oh, I don't mean to say she started the movement towards using the KJV. Clearly people used the KJV for hundreds of years before she came along.

 

However, she appears to have ignited the whole "satan is at the root of the other translations" and "all other translations are part of a new age conspiracy" that is at the heart of the rise of the KJV only movement in Evangelical circles in the present day.

 

Okay yes, understood. She has had a big influence that way. Because she documents the changes that people can look into themselves.

 

Quote:

"Of COURSE the 1611 translators beleived they were translating the very words of God. Wouldn't most Christian translators believe that?"

 

We would like to think so. But no.

 

Quote about not believing in the infallibility of the scriptures:

 

Westcott to Hort in 1860: "I reject the word infallibility of Holy Scripture overwhelming." Hort to Lightfoot in 1860: "If you make a decided conviction of the absolute infallibility of the N. T., I fear I could not join you, even if you were willing to forget your fears about the origin of the Gospels."

[Cammie]

From Wikipedia

 

Christian apologist James White has divided the KJV supporters into the following groups:

• "I Like the KJV Best" â€“ Although White lists this point of view as a subdivision of the KJVO group, this is disputed by some. This group simply regards the KJV as a very good translation and prefers it over other translations because the church they attend uses it, has always used it or prefers its style.
• "The Textual Argument" â€“ This group believes that the KJV's Hebrew and Greek textual base is more accurate than the alternate texts used by newer translations. Many in this group might accept a modern Bible version based on the same Greek and Hebrew manuscripts used for the KJV. White claims Zane C. Hodges is a member of this group.^[23] Hodges considers that the Majority Text "corrects" the Received Text. The World English Bible is an example of an English translation that uses the Majority Greek text.
• "Received Text Only" â€“ This group holds the position that the traditional Greek texts represented in the Textus Receptus are supernaturally (or providentially) preserved and that other Greek manuscripts not used in this compilation may be flawed. The KJV is viewed as an exemplary English translation that is based on this Greek grouping of Bible manuscripts put together by Desiderius Erasmus, but it is also believed that other translations based on these texts have the potential to be of equal quality. The views of the Trinitarian Bible Society fit into this TRO division. The Trinitarian Bible Society does not believe that the Authorized Version (KJV) is a perfect translation, only that it is the best available translation in the English language.^[24] The Society believes this text is superior to the texts used by the United Bible Societies and other Bible publishers, which use texts that incorporate as their basis a relatively few manuscripts from the 4th century, and some going back to the early 2nd century.^[25]
• "The Inspired KJV Group" â€“ This faction believes that the KJV itself was divinely inspired. They view the translation to be an English preservation of the very words of God and that they are as accurate as the original Greek and Hebrew manuscripts found in its underlying texts. Often this group excludes other English versions based on the same manuscripts, claiming that the KJV is the only English Bible sanctioned by God. They believe that this English translation should never be changed.
• "The KJV As New Revelation" â€“ This group claims that the KJV is a "new revelation" or "advanced revelation" from God, and it should be the standard from which all other translations originate. Adherents to this belief may also believe that the original-languages, Hebrew and Greek, can be corrected by the KJV. This view is often called "Ruckmanism" after Peter Ruckman, a staunch advocate of this view.

 

Very interesting.  Clearly, if people fall into the last two groups there is not going to be a way for them to accept that other translations are just as good.

 

​

[Slache]

I guess what I still really don't understand...is why it is so important to lift up the KJV over all the other versions?

 

You can think it is better for your needs, easier to understand, a better translation even. But why the need to denigrate every other translation in the process? Translations that millions of Christians have relied upon and that suit their religious needs.

 

No one doubts that the KJV is a good and useful version of the Bible. But the idea that the other versions are the products of satan or of a spiritual war seems so extreme.

They come from two different texts that disagree. If they disagree then one is wrong. Either the KJV is right and the rest are wrong or the KJV is wrong and the rest are right. They're not all right.

[Teannika]

I guess what I still really don't understand...is why it is so important to lift up the KJV over all the other versions?

 

You can think it is better for your needs, easier to understand, a better translation even. But why the need to denigrate every other translation in the process? Translations that millions of Christians have relied upon and that suit their religious needs.

 

No one doubts that the KJV is a good and useful version of the Bible. But the idea that the other versions are the products of satan or of a spiritual war seems so extreme.

Because of doctrinal difference. Modern English bibles water down doctrines or remove them.

 

ETA I like Slaches response better. Spot on.

[Joker]

How can you know that older means better?

 

How can you know it doesn't? It's all about faith.

[TechWife]

You misunderstood my point then. My point is not that everyone is and will be speaking English (even though I do think we are moving in that direction), but it is THE language that is up there in being accessible and utilised by all nations to communicate. Just as you admit, in the business world for example.

 

I'm not sure what stats you are looking up. Maybe I missed your earlier links. A quick search gave me - http://www.statista.com/statistics/266808/the-most-spoken-languages-worldwide/

 

http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Foreign_language_learning_statistics

 

 

 

Neither of these sources support your statement "it is THE language that is up there in being accessible and utilized by all nations to communicate." 

 

If you want some perspective on spoken language, you can see by the table on this page, that there are more Asian languages spoken than any other language (just over 2,300). In addition, in Europe, there are 286 languages currently being spoken, in the Americas - there are over 1,000. 

 

The table on this page shows the major language familes. The largest one is Niger-Condo (21%). The Indo-European group, into which fall both the  United Kingdom and the United States, is 6.15%. 

 

This table further breaks the statistics down by country. It is very interesting. There are 422 languages spoken in the United States, of which 216 are indigenous to this country. 

 

With all of these different languages being spoken, I am unclear as to why anyone would assume that English is "THE" language. 

[Teannika]

How can you know it doesn't? It's all about faith.

 

If I have faith the older manuscript will be better?

[Cammie]

They come from two different texts that disagree. If they disagree then one is wrong. Either the KJV is right and the rest are wrong or the KJV is wrong and the rest are right. They're not all right.

 

Or, the KJV got a lot right but not everything.  And the other translations got a lot right and not everything.  There are differences because source texts have differences. There are differences because withing certain groupings of Greek texts there are differences.  There are differences because there are a multiplicity of texts that all have differences between them.

 

I don't think this black and white thinking is very helpful to a full understanding of the situation.

 

I understand that for those who believe that the KJV and ONLY the KJV is divinely inspired...there is no other way to think about the situation.

 

But if you accept that it was men who did the work, and that those men had to make CHOICES in choosing which words to use, and that those choices may have been influenced by the texts that were available in 1611 or the powers that be in 1611 or their own personal beliefs and understandings, then things are not so black and white.

[Teannika]

Neither of these sources support your statement "it is THE language that is up there in being accessible and utilized by all nations to communicate."

 

I just want to clarify on the above quoted sentence and then I will read your links.

 

I'd like to end that sentence with '.... Utilised by all nations to communicate between each other.'

I'll probably still be contested on that, but that's what I am meaning when referring to a main world language that is being used to cross barriers between nationalities. It is a significant language and not so minor as seems to be being argued here.

[Slache]

Or, the KJV got a lot right but not everything. And the other translations got a lot right and not everything. There are differences because source texts have differences. There are differences because withing certain groupings of Greek texts there are differences. There are differences because there are a multiplicity of texts that all have differences between them.

 

I don't think this black and white thinking is very helpful to a full understanding of the situation.

 

I understand that for those who believe that the KJV and ONLY the KJV is divinely inspired...there is no other way to think about the situation.

 

But if you accept that it was men who did the work, and that those men had to make CHOICES in choosing which words to use, and that those choices may have been influenced by the texts that were available in 1611 or the powers that be in 1611 or their own personal beliefs and understandings, then things are not so black and white.

But I believe the Greek texts the KJV is from are inspired, while the Greek texts the others are from are corrupt. The KJV isn't perfect because it's not the inspired text, but it is the English version we have that's translated from the inspired texts. The others are translated from the corrupt texts so they're not as good.

[TechWife]

But as has been explained, we aren't seeing a transition to one language.  You saying there is one doesn't make it so.  While many (especially in the business world) in other countries pick up English as a second language, many in the U.S. do exactly the same thing and have for some time.

 

There are also many people who work around the world and only speak one language, like my husband. The company he works for states that because they are based in the United States, they conduct business in English. This does not mean that everyone he comes in contact with must speak English. It means that the clients must provide a translator. He works with translators every time he goes to China, Japan or India. If English were such a universal language, this would not be necessary because they would understand everything he has to say. 

[Cammie]

But I believe the Greek texts the KJV is from are inspired, while the Greek texts the others are from are corrupt. The KJV isn't perfect because it's not the inspired text, but it is the English version we have that's translated from the inspired texts. The others are translated from the corrupt texts so they're not as good.

 

 

Ok, and you are absolutely entitled to that opinion.  And clearly a lot of people LOVE the KJV so you have good company.

 

The problem I see is with the group of KJV only people who argue that the other versions are a new age conspiracy designed to lead people away from Christianity.  That seems like an attack on those people who have preferred other translations.

 

Why can't KJV loving people use their Bible an other people use other versions and not have that be a reason for a split in the Christian community?

[Teannika]

'Whereas English lags behind in the number of native speakers, it is by far the world's most commonly studied language'

 

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/04/23/the-worlds-languages-in-7-maps-and-charts/

[Cammie]

I guess my final thought on this is that I wish that Christians spent more time and energy in finding ways to unite us than divide us. 

 

This isn't a comment on Teannika or others who I am sure have sincerely held religious beliefs on the subject.

 

It is just a general comment that I think we would all be better served by focusing on the big picture - the loving your neighbor, the helping the Samaritan, than focusing on the divisions between one translation and another.

 

But thanks all for a very enlightening discussion, I for one learned a lot about something I had no idea about.

[TechWife]

'Whereas English lags behind in the number of native speakers, it is by far the world's most commonly studied language'

 

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/04/23/the-worlds-languages-in-7-maps-and-charts/

 

Amongst those who study languages, of course. Those who don't study languages wouldn't be included in this number. 

[TechWife]

I guess my final thought on this is that I wish that Christians spent more time and energy in finding ways to unite us than divide us. 

 

This isn't a comment on Teannika or others who I am sure have sincerely held religious beliefs on the subject.

 

It is just a general comment that I think we would all be better served by focusing on the big picture - the loving your neighbor, the helping the Samaritan, than focusing on the divisions between one translation and another.

 

But thanks all for a very enlightening discussion, I for one learned a lot about something I had no idea about.

 

Very well said - thank you! 

[Teannika]

I guess my final thought on this is that I wish that Christians spent more time and energy in finding ways to unite us than divide us.

 

This isn't a comment on Teannika or others who I am sure have sincerely held religious beliefs on the subject.

 

It is just a general comment that I think we would all be better served by focusing on the big picture - the loving your neighbor, the helping the Samaritan, than focusing on the divisions between one translation and another.

 

But thanks all for a very enlightening discussion, I for one learned a lot about something I had no idea about.

 

I think most of us genuinely want to be united, likeminded, and in one accord.

 

The bible version issue isn't a salvation issue. But I think it would be helpful to keep in mind that people have been martyred to get the scriptures to us. They took a very serious and strong stance. They stood for what they believed were God's true words. Such as Tyndale who was burned at the stake. Should we also not take a stand?

[Cammie]

I think most of us genuinely want to be united, likeminded, and in one accord.

 

The bible version issue isn't a salvation issue. But I think it would be helpful to keep in mind that people have been martyred to get the scriptures to us. They took a very serious and strong stance. They stood for what they believed were God's true words. Such as Tyndale who was burned at the stake. Should we also not take a stand?

 

There are many, many things that people have been willing to die for throughout history.  That doesn't inform how I approach a similar issue at this time in history.

[need2read]

How can you know that older means better?

How can I know that older means better? Because it is closer to the source. It is logical to conclude that copies made closer to the original document will have fewer omissions and errors. Errors creep in over time. The less time that has passed the less chance that has happened.

 

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[need2read]

They come from two different texts that disagree. If they disagree then one is wrong. Either the KJV is right and the rest are wrong or the KJV is wrong and the rest are right. They're not all right.

 

You are creating a false dichotomy. It is not an either/or issue; the KJV and modern translations were translated from translations. These manuscripts don't disagree, they are just slightly different in translation. The meaning remains the same.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Slache]

Ok, and you are absolutely entitled to that opinion. And clearly a lot of people LOVE the KJV so you have good company.

 

The problem I see is with the group of KJV only people who argue that the other versions are a new age conspiracy designed to lead people away from Christianity. That seems like an attack on those people who have preferred other translations.

 

Why can't KJV loving people use their Bible an other people use other versions and not have that be a reason for a split in the Christian community?

There are major doctrinal differences, and I do think it's a conspiracy by Satan. Another attack on God's word.

 

If we all used the uncorrupt version we would be more united. I don't bring up the KJV thing, but I will discuss it if someone else does.

[Slache]

You are creating a false dichotomy. It is not an either/or issue; the KJV and modern translations were translated from translations. These manuscripts don't disagree, they are just slightly different in translation. The meaning remains the same.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This is far from true even if it is commonly accepted. There are over 300 doctrinal differences between the two and the picture they paint of who God, Jesus, and Satan are are very different.

 

Here are a few differences http://av1611.com/kjbp/charts/various.html but I've been comparing them for 4 years and there are thousands more.

 

I do not agree with much of what that website says, so if you go digging around please don't think I consider Bible version a salvation issue or that the KJV is inspired.

 

Eta: And I am studying Greek so that I can go back to the Greek text and they don't agree. I'm not just relying on what other people say which I think is important because much of the KJV movement is legalistic and misinformed.

[ktgrok]

Because of doctrinal difference. Modern English bibles water down doctrines or remove them.

 

ETA I like Slaches response better. Spot on.

 

 

I find it interesting that you keep denigrating the newer translations because they are modern, then when someone points out they are based on actually OLDER texts than the KJV you say oh, but older isn't better. Which is it? You can't say older is better (KJV is better because it isn't modern) then say oh, but older isn't really better. 

[ktgrok]

But I believe the Greek texts the KJV is from are inspired, while the Greek texts the others are from are corrupt. The KJV isn't perfect because it's not the inspired text, but it is the English version we have that's translated from the inspired texts. The others are translated from the corrupt texts so they're not as good.

 

Ok, so this would be the central issue. Why do you think the one Greek text is inspired by God, and the others are corrupt? Maybe one of the others is inspired, and the one the KJV uses is corrupt. 

[Pam in CT]

Adding my thanks to Cammie's -- this thread has been fascinating to me.  

 

Sent me back, in fact, to Tower of Babel, one of my topmost favorites:

 

 

Gen 11:1  And all the earth was one language, one set of words.  2 And it happened as they journeyed from the east that they found a valley in the land of Shinar and settled there.  3 And they said to each other, 'Come, let us bake bricks and burn them hard.'  And the brick served them as stone, and bitumen served them as mortar. 4 And they said, 'Come. let us build us a city and a tower with its top in the heavens, that we may make us a name, lest we be scattered over all the earth.'  5 And the Lord came down to see the city and the tower that the human creatures had built.  6 And the Lord said, 'As one people with one language for all, if this is what they have begun to do, now nothing they plot to do will elude them.  7 Come, let us go down and baffle their language there so that they will not understand each other's language.'  

 

8 And the Lord scattered them from there over all the earth and they left off building the city.  9 Therefore it is called Babel, for there the Lord made the language of all the earth babble.  And from there the Lord scattered them over all the earth.

 

 

(FWIW, translation by Robert Alter, my personal favorite, though in the Jewish tradition no translation can ever be more than the roughest approximation of the Hebrew, in which sadly I am not remotely competent)

 

 

 

I puzzle over this story all.the.time.  It seems to suggest that God sees a risk in our all speaking the same language (or, alternatively, that God sees a benefit in our having differences).

[Laura Corin]

'Whereas English lags behind in the number of native speakers, it is by far the world's most commonly studied language'

 

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/04/23/the-worlds-languages-in-7-maps-and-charts/

 

There's a confusion here between studying a language and being able to use a language.  You may well have studied a foreign language at school, but can you use it?  Most can't.

[MFG]

Ok, so this would be the central issue. Why do you think the one Greek text is inspired by God, and the others are corrupt? Maybe one of the others is inspired, and the one the KJV uses is corrupt.

Interesting that the Textus Receptus, which was compiled by Desiderius Erasmus, a Catholic scholar, is considered the one non corrupt text. I suppose ad hominem attack is only valid if it supports the preferred position.

[Slache]

Ok, so this would be the central issue. Why do you think the one Greek text is inspired by God, and the others are corrupt? Maybe one of the others is inspired, and the one the KJV uses is corrupt.

Don't ask such hard questions! Ok. If there are differences than one is wrong. The Received Texts from the Byzantine Empire (KJV) are more doctinally consistent than the Alexandrian Texts (Catholic Bible, NIV, etc.). The Alexandrian Transcripts have also been in the hands of gnostics. I really wish I had taken notes on this. I should begin reading the two side by side and take notes.

 

I believe that the reason the Alexandrian Transcripts are older than the Byzantine Texts are because the Byzantine Texts were kept in the hands of Christians and were therefore constantly being used. The Byzantine Texts are older than the Alexandrian Texts in wording, but all of the originals were worn out because they were either being read or used to make copies.

[Slache]

Interesting that the Textus Receptus, which was compiled by Desiderius Erasmus, a Catholic scholar, is considered the one non corrupt text. I suppose ad hominem attack is only valid if it supports the preferred position.

Just because one doesn't agree with Catholic doctrine does not mean that one thinks Catholics are evil.

[bolt.]

1. I don't think "doctrinal differences" means what is being claimed here.

 

2. I don't think there are any textual variations (btw the KJV's source texts, and the ones found more credible by other scholars) that rise to the level of espousing "different doctrines" from one another.

 

3. Among the slight differentiations, I think we find minor issues and shades of meaning that indicate the existence of ambiguity, not evidence of contradiction.

 

4. With textual variants -- like a game of telephone -- earlier is usually closer to the source, and older scripts should be considered most accurate if push comes to shove.

 

5. "Corruption" occurs after originals, chronologically. Some corruption can occur very early, each variation spawning a branch that follows it -- so some later copies of an in-varied text can be more accurate than some earlier copies of a varied text... It's not 100% simple, but there is a science to it. "They just must have picked all the best ones ever at that perfect KJV point in history! Because: God." Is not a proprly rigorous approach to the issue of textual variants. (This science accounts for 'missing' verses, 'changes' etc.)

 

6. There is no nefarious widespread conspiracy to corrupt the word of God evident in the faithful ministry of most Bible translation teams.

 

7. There is no Nazi conspiracy just because Germans work in Bible translation.

 

8. There is no Catholic conspiracy to take over Bible translation in order to spread their (supposedly) heretical and unbiblical doctrines to an unsuspecting public.

 

8. There is no one world order, one world language -- and if there was it would be unlikely to be white or English, and if it was English, it would be simplified vernacular English. There is no conceivable way it would be KJV English.

 

9. It is perfectly simple to say the same thing (doctrinally) using a variety of phrases and translation philosophies. This is normal: to ask what English words communicate the original ideas best? -- and to get a variety of answers. It does not make the Bibles "different" in the sense that one is right and one is wrong every time one of them says "and he went to capernaum" and another says "then he went to capernaum".

[FaithManor]

I just want to clarify on the above quoted sentence and then I will read your links.

 

I'd like to end that sentence with '.... Utilised by all nations to communicate between each other.'

I'll probably still be contested on that, but that's what I am meaning when referring to a main world language that is being used to cross barriers between nationalities. It is a significant language and not so minor as seems to be being argued here.

You will be contested on this because you can not back it up with facts. You also do not understand what it means to be literate in a second language.

 

English does not even come close to being utilised by all nations to communicate. It might behoove you to spend some time on other continents. There are seven billion people on planet earth and the VAST majority of them do not speak English much less are literate enough to read it to an 8th grade level, but they will also live and die without the opportunity to study it.

 

There are world literacy websites you can access for more information. Your opinions on the world fluency with English are misinformed. And again, going back to this as some sort of defense of the KJV there is a huge difference between verbal skills and reading skills. Four year olds raised in English speaking homes with it as their first language are not literate. That does not make them literate in Shakespearean sonnets much less the KJV or any other translation. The average two years of high school study of a foreign language does not even bring the young adult up to the level of verbal fluency of a four year old.

 

Literacy partners (.org) - only 12% of the world population, roughly 775 million, are functionally literate in their primary language. Of these, only a tiny percentage will have functional literacy and fluency with another language and for most it is not English they have acquired but languages and dialects of the non English speaking tribes and people groups around them. In Malaysia, one routinely encounters individuals who are fluent in Malay and Chinese, but the most these same peoples may be able to do in English is say "Hello, my name is____" and that does not imply they could even read that skmple sentence on paper.

 

Your argument concerning any movement towards or use of English worldwide is simply unsupportable.

[MFG]

1. I don't think "doctrinal differences" means what is being claimed here.

 

2. I don't think there are any textual variations (btw the KJV's source texts, and the ones found more credible by other scholars) that rise to the level of espousing "different doctrines" from one another.

 

3. Among the slight differentiations, I think we find minor issues and shades of meaning that indicate the existence of ambiguity, not evidence of contradiction.

 

4. With textual variants -- like a game of telephone -- earlier is usually closer to the source, and older scripts should be considered most accurate if push comes to shove.

 

5. "Corruption" occurs after originals, chronologically. Some corruption can occur very early, each variation spawning a branch that follows it -- so some later copies of an in-varied text can be more accurate than some earlier copies of a varied text... It's not 100% simple, but there is a science to it. "They just must have picked all the best ones ever at that perfect KJV point in history! Because: God." Is not a proprly rigorous approach to the issue of textual variants. (This science accounts for 'missing' verses, 'changes' etc.)

 

6. There is no nefarious widespread conspiracy to corrupt the word of God evident in the faithful ministry of most Bible translation teams.

 

7. There is no Nazi conspiracy just because Germans work in Bible translation.

 

8. There is no Catholic conspiracy to take over Bible translation in order to spread their (supposedly) heretical and unbiblical doctrines to an unsuspecting public.

 

8. There is no one world order, one world language -- and if there was it would be unlikely to be white or English, and if it was English, it would be simplified vernacular English. There is no conceivable way it would be KJV English.

 

9. It is perfectly simple to say the same thing (doctrinally) using a variety of phrases and translation philosophies. This is normal: to ask what English words communicate the original ideas best? -- and to get a variety of answers. It does not make the Bibles "different" in the sense that one is right and one is wrong every time one of them says "and he went to capernaum" and another says "then he went to capernaum".

Thank you.

 

KJO explanations sound to me like Christian "Just So" stories.

[bolt.]

I should add some positive comments, in case I give only a one-sided impression

 

1. Yes, there is theological bias in translations. The best solution is to learn languages. 2nd best is to compare the various translations we have (including KJV).

 

2. Yes, there is benefit in "formal equivalence" (word by word translation) for certain kinds of beneficial study. There are things you miss if your translation is too "dynamic" in communicating each verse and paragraph for best communication -- things that are strikingly similar, (parallel, repetitive) in the original lose those aspects and go unnoticed.

 

3. The way KJV the Old Testament was aided by the Greek OT (not the Hebrew OT alone) makes it easier to detect how and when the NT is subtly referencing the OT (hint: very frequently) because the similarities come out in the phrasing, even in the translation. Helping people get a feel for NT/OT intertextuality greatly increases their ability to interpret well.

[need2read]

Don't ask such hard questions! Ok. If there are differences than one is wrong. The Received Texts from the Byzantine Empire (KJV) are more doctinally consistent than the Alexandrian Texts (Catholic Bible, NIV, etc.). The Alexandrian Transcripts have also been in the hands of gnostics. I really wish I had taken notes on this. I should begin reading the two side by side and take notes.

 

I believe that the reason the Alexandrian Transcripts are older than the Byzantine Texts are because the Byzantine Texts were kept in the hands of Christians and were therefore constantly being used. The Byzantine Texts are older than the Alexandrian Texts in wording, but all of the originals were worn out because they were either being read or used to make copies.

Differences do not make one right and one wrong. There are differences in the way the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke) tell the events of Jesus's life and ministry but that does not make any of them wrong, just different. If someone told you that they didn't believe the Bible is true because of the differences between the gospels you would tell them that being different does not mean they contradict each other or teach something different. In the same way, differences in translations does not necessarily make one wrong and one right.

 

For example, I went to the grocery store on Monday. I could tell you this in many ways. I could say "I went to the grocery store on Monday" or "I bought food two days ago" or " on Monday I drove to Shop'N'Save at 10:00 a.m. and spent $90 on food and household supplies." All of these statements are true. They are different but still true. And this is just one English speaker to another. Imagine if I was speaking to a Latin speaker from 2000 years ago? I would have to be a little creative in my word choice in order to convey the information. They wouldn't know what a grocery store is or Shop'N'Save or a dollar. I would need to find the best Latin words I could to tell them this information and it wouldn't be exact. This is what Bible translators are up against. They are translating a document written thousands of years ago in languages that don't exist anymore (modern Greek and Hebrew are different from Ancient Greek and Hebrew) to people with completely different lives and experiences than now. It is not as easy as it sounds.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Slache]

Differences do not make one right and one wrong. There are differences in the way the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke) tell the events of Jesus's life and ministry but that does not make any of them wrong, just different. If someone told you that they didn't believe the Bible is true because of the differences between the gospels you would tell them that being different does not mean they contradict each other or teach something different. In the same way, differences in translations does not necessarily make one wrong and one right.

 

For example, I went to the grocery store on Monday. I could tell you this in many ways. I could say "I went to the grocery store on Monday" or "I bought food two days ago" or " on Monday I drove to Shop'N'Save at 10:00 a.m. and spent $90 on food and household supplies." All of these statements are true. They are different but still true. And this is just one English speaker to another. Imagine if I was speaking to a Latin speaker from 2000 years ago? I would have to be a little creative in my word choice in order to convey the information. They wouldn't know what a grocery store is or Shop'N'Save or a dollar. I would need to find the best Latin words I could to tell them this information and it wouldn't be exact. This is what Bible translators are up against. They are translating a document written thousands of years ago in languages that don't exist anymore (modern Greek and Hebrew are different from Ancient Greek and Hebrew) to people with completely different lives and experiences than now. It is not as easy as it sounds.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Maybe wrong wasn't the correct response. One is the perfect inspired word of God, one is similar to the perfect inspired word of God. I'd rather have a translation from the perfect text.

[need2read]

Maybe wrong wasn't the correct response. One is the perfect inspired word of God, one is similar to the perfect inspired word of God. I'd rather have a translation from the perfect text.

The perfect text would be the original documents We don't have a translation from the perfect text because we don't have the original documents. Neither did the KJV translators.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Slache]

The perfect text would be the original documents We don't have a translation from the perfect text because we don't have the original documents. Neither did the KJV translators.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

But I believe that the Byzantine Texts are direct copies of the original text.

[Greta]

Someone who is more knowledgeable (bolt, anyone) jump in here and correct any misunderstandings that I might have. But here is my understanding of why the "older manuscripts are automatically better" theory has its flaws and limitations.

 

Mark's account of the resurrection (16:19-20) is present in hundreds upon hundreds of ancient manuscripts. It is not present in 2 (yes, just two!), but because those two are the oldest, modern translators working on Westcottand Hort's theory call those two the "most reliable". It is worth noting that one of those two leaves a blank space where that passage should be, indicating that the person transcribing it knew that something should be there.

 

Similarly, the story of the adulterous woman (John 7:53 - 8:11) is present in hundreds (I think I read it was over 900) manuscripts, but is absent in Westcott and Hort's preferred texts. St. Augustine said that this passage had been excised out of fear that it would promote adultery.

 

I don't think any of us actually doubt that these passages should be there. So why would we consider the two manuscripts that don't include them to be "more reliable" than the hundreds that do? Why is "older" superior to "complete"? The difference isn't one of just age, it is also one of geography. I don't know why the Egyptian manuscripts include less information than the manuscripts in other regions, but why should we automatically consider them superior simply because older versions of them exist?

 

Just to be clear, I'm not advocating KJO. But I do think there is value to the KJV, and one major point in its favor is that it is based on the more complete texts. I personally want every possible word that our Lord spoke, and every possible word that the apostles wrote, to be included. I don't feel that I in any way benefit from less information.

 

(Edited for spelling and formatting mistake.)

[zoobie]

Oh, I don't mean to say she started the movement towards using the KJV. Clearly people used the KJV for hundreds of years before she came along.

 

However, she appears to have ignited the whole "satan is at the root of the other translations" and "all other translations are part of a new age conspiracy" that is at the heart of the rise of the KJV only movement in Evangelical circles in the present day.

 

Of COURSE the 1611 translators beleived they were translating the very words of God. Wouldn't most Christian translators believe that?

I have no dog in this fight, but weren't they also working within some pretty intense political scrutiny? It's interesting to me that the political history seems overlooked entirely. The English feared God and King and not necessarily in that order. The translators could not be untouched by that reality.

 

I do find it fascinating that the KJV only churches are descendants of the Protestants who fled the oppression of King James and disagreed with the political intertwining of church and state.

 

(I'm quoting you as a springboard not because I disagree with you. I don't align religiously, but am nodding with you in bits and pieces. :) )

[Chelli]

What I find fascinating about KJO is that the translation came about because King James had an agenda. There was religious unrest in Great Britain between Catholics and Protestants (specifically Puritans) and James was worried about keeping his throne so he decides to have his scholars create an English version of the Bible to make everyone happy. In fact, he specifically instructed the translators to make sure their translation upheld the tenents of the Church of England. There were even a few times the translators invented English words or translated things a certain way so that they didn't upset the apple cart, such as using the word church instead of the correct translated Greek word congregation or assembly. 

 

The original King James 1611 version also included the books of the apocrypha which are not included today. Also in 1769, an Oxford professor had to go through and re-edit the 1611 version because so many printings of the Bible and the changes in English spelling and language over time had rendered the 1611 version out of date. The KJV version of the Bible sold today is actually the version from 1769 NOT the original 1611, so even KJO people who say the 1611 KJV is the best are not actually using the original 1611 version, but an updated version of the 1611.

 

Here are two sample passages the first is from the 1611 and the second is from the 1769 updated version:

 

1. Though I speake with the tongues of men & of Angels, and haue not charity, I am become as sounding brasse or a tinkling cymbal. 2 And though I haue the gift of prophesie, and vnderstand all mysteries and all knowledge: and though I haue all faith, so that I could remooue mountaines, and haue no charitie, I am nothing. 3 And though I bestowe all my goods to feede the poore, and though I giue my body to bee burned, and haue not charitie, it profiteth me nothing.

1. Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become 

as

 sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. 2 And though I have 

the gift of

prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing. 3 And though I bestow all my goods to feed 

the poor

, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.

There are some places in the KJV where things are translated fabulously and there are some places where it is translated poorly. This is true of pretty much any translation which is why my dh keeps at least one copy of just about every Bible version on his shelf. When he's in doubt he goes to the original Greek and reads from it which usually helps to make clear which version comes closest to the Greek.

[mommaduck]

Don't ask such hard questions! Ok. If there are differences than one is wrong. The Received Texts from the Byzantine Empire (KJV) are more doctinally consistent than the Alexandrian Texts (Catholic Bible, NIV, etc.). The Alexandrian Transcripts have also been in the hands of gnostics. I really wish I had taken notes on this. I should begin reading the two side by side and take notes.

 

I believe that the reason the Alexandrian Transcripts are older than the Byzantine Texts are because the Byzantine Texts were kept in the hands of Christians and were therefore constantly being used. The Byzantine Texts are older than the Alexandrian Texts in wording, but all of the originals were worn out because they were either being read or used to make copies.

That's hysterical, given that it's been proven that many non-Catholic beliefs are closer, in some cases the same, as the Gnostics held to. So they've supposedly been in the hands of Gnostics, but are they promoting Catholic or Gnostic beliefs?

[ktgrok]

Yes, but WHICH greek, that seems to be the question. 

 

Again, yes, many believe that things were later added to the manuscripts for various reasons. Making less "complete" versions more accurate. Scribes may have added things to promote clarity, with good intentions, but it was still an addition and not as "accurate."

 

Second, again, how anyon can claim that one version is the inspired word of God and not another version, I'd like to know. That's a HUGE claim, and I'd like to seem some evidence for that. 

[Slache]

Yes, but WHICH greek, that seems to be the question.

 

Again, yes, many believe that things were later added to the manuscripts for various reasons. Making less "complete" versions more accurate. Scribes may have added things to promote clarity, with good intentions, but it was still an addition and not as "accurate."

 

Second, again, how anyon can claim that one version is the inspired word of God and not another version, I'd like to know. That's a HUGE claim, and I'd like to seem some evidence for that.

I don't have evidence. I'm bowing out of this. I am in no way an expert on this. I do believe that the Byzantine Texts are inspired, based on previous study, making the KJV more accurate.

[mommaduck]

Maybe wrong wasn't the correct response. One is the perfect inspired word of God, one is similar to the perfect inspired word of God. I'd rather have a translation from the perfect text.

Actually, there have been proven textual errors, even in the KJV. Inspired, not infallible.

[Slache]

Actually, there have been proven textual errors, even in the KJV. Inspired, not infallible.

The KJV or the Greek?

[AmericanMom]

the Byzantine Texts were kept in the hands of Christians and were therefore constantly being used. The Byzantine Texts are older than the Alexandrian Texts in wording, but all of the originals were worn out because they were either being read or used to make copies.

Ok this is interesting.

 

These "Byzantine Christians" who preserved the texts for us were also great missionaries and translated the Bible into many languages, some of which they invented alphabets for so the people they were sharing with could have Bibles in their own languages. This group still exists today and is called (in the West) the Eastern Orthodox Church.

[mommaduck]

The KJV or the Greek?

The KJV.

[mommaduck]

http://www.holy-trinity.org/liturgics/nrsv.html

 

A very interesting read. Ftr, it's true about the Pilgrims. I learned about this from my Reformed days. They were anti-KJV and carried the Geneva.

 

Also

These earlier editions of the Scriptures contain fewer accumulations of copyists' errors that crept in over the centuries. (Take for example KJV 1 John 5:7: "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one." This is a very interesting and theologically profound statement. But it is absent from the RV and descendents. Critical study has found that this verse was a late addition to the Bible, and despite its theological significance, it has been deleted.) So, as each revision of the Bible was produced, more and more ancient manuscripts were compared: more and more authenticity and reliability was achieved.