-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
King James Only?
- Thread starter Heart of a Seeker
- Start date
- Status
themuzicman
Senior Member
The KJV is a nice translation, but being 400 years old, it's very dated.
The Greek text that was used for translation came from a Catholic Priest named Erasmus, who was hurried along through the process to produce a Greek text before a competing group could finish theirs, and, as such, only used about a dozen out of the literally thosands of manuscripts available to him.
In fact, he didn't even have all of the text of the New Testament in manuscript form when he did his work, and several verses in Revelation are actually taken from the Latin Vulgate and translated BACK into the Greek, and have no basis whatsoever in the original.
Further, his texts come almost exclusively from the later Byzantine family of manuscripts, which are known for being good copies, but also have some additions and corrections made by Scribes to smooth things out or to make traditional additions.
Passages such as Mark 16:9-20 and John 7:53-8:11 represent a couple of these additions not found in earlier manuscripts. KJVOs will often decry "eliminating" Scripture from the "bible" when they see these portions noted as not among the original text.
There have also been more recent discoveries of manuscripts which are far older than those used by Erasmus, including a fragment that was probably copied less than 100 years after the original was written.
And, as we look at the various text types, and understand their strengths and weaknesses, we have come to a better Greek Text from which to translated the New Testament, and many of the newer editions use these Greek texts as the basis for translation. The latest "formal" translation (to my knowledge) is the ESV.
So, the KJV is pretty good, being based upon good work by Erasmus, but is based upon a limited view of the manuscripts available, and, as such, has some issues. Later translations give us a more accurate picture of the original.
Miuz
The Greek text that was used for translation came from a Catholic Priest named Erasmus, who was hurried along through the process to produce a Greek text before a competing group could finish theirs, and, as such, only used about a dozen out of the literally thosands of manuscripts available to him.
In fact, he didn't even have all of the text of the New Testament in manuscript form when he did his work, and several verses in Revelation are actually taken from the Latin Vulgate and translated BACK into the Greek, and have no basis whatsoever in the original.
Further, his texts come almost exclusively from the later Byzantine family of manuscripts, which are known for being good copies, but also have some additions and corrections made by Scribes to smooth things out or to make traditional additions.
Passages such as Mark 16:9-20 and John 7:53-8:11 represent a couple of these additions not found in earlier manuscripts. KJVOs will often decry "eliminating" Scripture from the "bible" when they see these portions noted as not among the original text.
There have also been more recent discoveries of manuscripts which are far older than those used by Erasmus, including a fragment that was probably copied less than 100 years after the original was written.
And, as we look at the various text types, and understand their strengths and weaknesses, we have come to a better Greek Text from which to translated the New Testament, and many of the newer editions use these Greek texts as the basis for translation. The latest "formal" translation (to my knowledge) is the ESV.
So, the KJV is pretty good, being based upon good work by Erasmus, but is based upon a limited view of the manuscripts available, and, as such, has some issues. Later translations give us a more accurate picture of the original.
Miuz
Upvote
0
mrscplus
Regular Member
- Jul 8, 2007
- 361
- 32
- Faith
- Presbyterian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- CA-Conservatives
How goes the KJ debate?
Ask your friend if he goes to a doctor that uses the 17th century methods of medicine? Thinking that only one translation of the bible is right, is like thinking that medicine can't be practiced any other way.
Does he use a cell phone, or drive a car?
we have learned much since the discovery of the dead sea scrolls, and other archeological finds, and this has had a great impact on how the original languages are interpreted, thus effecting scripture translations.
The "authorized" bible part of the KJV is because James authorized the translation...no other reason.
Use a bible that you can understand. God speaks through all the languages, and all of the english bibles that are out there. When I am selling a first Bible, my first question is "what translation does you Pastor preach from?". Begin with that. It can be very confusing to be reading from a translation other than the one you are hearing used in Church. Once you get more familiar with the scriptures, then look into other translations for comparison, and new truths will be revealed, but begin with something that you will be able to understand, and not become frustrated by.
Ask your friend if he goes to a doctor that uses the 17th century methods of medicine? Thinking that only one translation of the bible is right, is like thinking that medicine can't be practiced any other way.
Does he use a cell phone, or drive a car?
we have learned much since the discovery of the dead sea scrolls, and other archeological finds, and this has had a great impact on how the original languages are interpreted, thus effecting scripture translations.
The "authorized" bible part of the KJV is because James authorized the translation...no other reason.
Use a bible that you can understand. God speaks through all the languages, and all of the english bibles that are out there. When I am selling a first Bible, my first question is "what translation does you Pastor preach from?". Begin with that. It can be very confusing to be reading from a translation other than the one you are hearing used in Church. Once you get more familiar with the scriptures, then look into other translations for comparison, and new truths will be revealed, but begin with something that you will be able to understand, and not become frustrated by.
Upvote
0
- Jul 12, 2006
- 26,770
- 861
- Faith
- Pentecostal
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
You're good! And you made me laugh. Absolutely right!
I really like my Amplified Bible and use it most of the time. I have a NLT that I like to just read. I pick up the KJV and think 'ugh' - it can be like wading through mud sometimes.
I really like my Amplified Bible and use it most of the time. I have a NLT that I like to just read. I pick up the KJV and think 'ugh' - it can be like wading through mud sometimes.
Upvote
0
HuntingMan
Well-Known Member
MY KJVonly spell lasted about a month.
When I started studying the underlying manuscripts my absolute trust in any one translation fell completely apart.
The KJV is probably in the top 3, but is has issues of its own, such as the Johannine Comma, that show me that its a GREAT translation, but not by any means more perfect than some others out there.
I am a Greek Majority Text man. I dont believe for a second that God hid His word in caves but had them out in the hands of the church. Thus I believe that the Byzantine Texts are by far the best for the New Testatment. That tends to make me seem to be KJVonlyer, but the KJV is a translation of those texts I trust, not the texts themselves.
Upvote
0
- Jul 12, 2006
- 26,770
- 861
- Faith
- Pentecostal
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
I don't know. They are adamant. I got told by my future MIL that THEY were right, THEY were fundamental Christians and if I didn't conform, I could hit the road. I laughed. Geesh. I did.
People get crazy and brainwashed.
It's really sad.
People get crazy and brainwashed.
It's really sad.
Upvote
0
I am starting to be KJV only too. There is a difference between clarifying the Bible for better understanding and completely twisting it. I don't care if a scripture is worded differently as long it means the same as the original. But its becomes bad when you start leaving sections of scripture out and giving the original scripture a different meaning. The only other translation that I would consider is the Amplified Bible. But I have no problem with the KJV at all.
Upvote
0
Dralan
Regular Member
Some KJVers remind me of a term I heard called 'bibliolotry', which is making an idol out of the Bible itself. We have to remember that the KJV is a translation into English just like any other translation. Yes some are more accurate than others. My former church used the NIV and the pastor said we should be thankful that we are blessed to have so many English versions to choose from - pick one you like and if it brings you closer to God who am I to knock it? I use the NKJV and the NIV both. I think its wise to own a few different versions and compare them. Personally I find some of the language of the KJV makes it a little difficult to get a clear understanding of the text in certain places, but I am no theologian so a contemporary version suits my needs better.
Upvote
0
- Jul 4, 2004
- 4,169
- 786
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Charismatic
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
av1611.org is not a good reference. He is not concerned with truth. He has been confronted about outright lies about Christians, and keeps the known misinformation posted on his site. What does the Bible say about the spiritual state of such a person?
I have found that the KJV only position is all about covering very bad doctrine with obsolete language. Words have changed in the centuries. The KJV must be retranslated into current English, and the one translating is the one determining the meaning in those cases.
I have found that the KJV only position is all about covering very bad doctrine with obsolete language. Words have changed in the centuries. The KJV must be retranslated into current English, and the one translating is the one determining the meaning in those cases.
Upvote
0
Luther, nor Calvin nor Zwingli used the KJV. So they obviously were all in the wrong. (please note the sarcasm)
The problem I have with the KJV is the same I have with all Protestant versions, the main source for translation work comes from texts (Masoratic texts) edited by non-Christians.
Peter
The problem I have with the KJV is the same I have with all Protestant versions, the main source for translation work comes from texts (Masoratic texts) edited by non-Christians.
Peter
Upvote
0
The Old Testament Texts primarily used by the translators of the King James Version were the Complutensian Polyglot (1517) and the Antwerp Polyglot (1572). Today we have Masoretic manuscripts dating from the 10th century. For portions of the Old Testament we now have manuscripts from the second century B.C. Approximately 800 Hebrew manuscripts of the Old Testament have now been studied. The King James Translators had only one text for the Septuagint, we now have many. They had only a corrupted text of the Latin, we now have Codex Amiatinus (A.D. 541) representing Jerome's final edition. Thus the textual foundation of the King James Old Testament is very poor. More recent Protestant translations of the Old Testament take into consideration the most recent data available.
For a very detailed article on the Old Testament used in the early church, see the following:
http://department.monm.edu/classics/Speel_Festschrift/sundbergJr.htm
The Old Testament text primarily used by the translators of the King James Version was the third edition of Robert Estiennes text of 1550. It is commonly called the Textus Receptus although the true Textus Receptus was not published until 1633. Only one of the five primary uncial manuscripts of the New Testament, the Codex Bezae, was yet available and apparently it was not used. Of the 5,359 manuscripts we now have of the New Testament, the King James Version translators had less than 25 available to them and they were of late origin. Indeed, their primary text was so poor by today's standards that it is commonly called a "corrupt" text by today's scholars. More recent Protestant translations of the Old Testament take into consideration the most recent data available.
Upvote
0
And who wrote the manuscripts the Septuagint was based on? And who did the translation of the Septuagint? Oh my, it was nonChristians.
Marv
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
