The KJV is not the standard by which we judge other English versions of the Bible and certainly not the Greek and Hebrew.
Agreed.
Upvote
0
The KJV is not the standard by which we judge other English versions of the Bible and certainly not the Greek and Hebrew.
I think that depends on who you ask.
So if I were to ask Dr. D.A. Waite, Dr. Mickey Carter, and others; are you telling me they would agree with you?
Who cares?
The KJV is not the standard by which we judge other English versions of the Bible and certainly n
Agreed
I think that depends on who you ask.
No, really it does not.
So if I were to ask Dr. D.A. Waite, Dr. Mickey Carter, and others; are you telling me they would agree with you?
Who cares?
So when the professional opinion of particular scholars disagrees with a statement which you make, your best response is; "Who cares?"
hold the position that that the King James Bible is the stand for English Bibles.
Pastor D. A. WaiteAre D.A. Waite and Mickey Carter "scholars"?
That is your OPINION, nothing more, nothing less.The standard for all Bibles is the original Hebrew and Greek. That standard shows the KJV to be flawed.
That is your OPINION, nothing more, nothing less.
We aren't talking about Shakespeare, we are talking about 1) the vast majority of Greek MSS supporting readings which modern scholarship reject, because the developers of the rules governing Textual Criticism were made by those who reject the inspiration of all Scripture; and 2) the method of translation is more about Dynamic Equivalence than Formal Equivalence because Dynamic Equivalence gives scholarship a greater ability to use a broader definition when translating the Biblical narrative.Exactly. It's also why the standard for judging how faithful an adaptation is to the works of Shakespeare isn't the works of Shakespeare themselves, but rather the 2013 film Make Your Move.
-CryptoLutheran
We aren't talking about Shakespeare, we are talking about 1) the vast majority of Greek MSS supporting readings which modern scholarship reject, because the developers of the rules governing Textual Criticism were made by those who reject the inspiration of all Scripture; and 2) the method of translation is more about Dynamic Equivalence than Formal Equivalence because Dynamic Equivalence gives scholarship a greater ability to use a broader definition when translating the Biblical narrative.
You may want to do a bit of research on Johann Salomo Semler and his disciplesAnd what does any of that have to do with the KJV? Or with the KJV being the standard to judge other translations?
But since we're here now,
1) What are the vast majority of readings which "modern scholarship" rejects on the basis of Textual Criticism? And where do you get that this is because such scholars reject divine inspiration?
Please tell me that isn't your argument! Anyone with any knowledge of English and Greek is fully aware that English and Greek syntax differ greatly.2) And yet most of the most widely used translations rely on Formal Equivalence, not Dynamic Equivalence. Further, you are attributing motive for why one would choose to prefer dynamic over formal, but there can be a lot of reasons to prefer one or the other--namely how to best render the text in such a way as to make it sensible to the reader. If a translations chose to use the most woodenly word-for-word we'd likely get an incoherent mess, it would be a bad translation.
Example:
Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος
In beginning was the Word and the Word was beside the God and God was the Word.
That's a literal word-for-word, but it fails to 1) look proper in English and 2) fails to understand Greek grammatical rules and so does not faithfully capture the meaning. Hence:
In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God.
By adding the definite article before beginning it helps the flow in English; also removing the definite article before "God" is in keeping with standard English usage. Further, by restructuring part of the sentence where "God" without definite article is being used to describe the Word (as the subject) to get "and the Word was God" rather than the clunky and incorrect (in English) "And God was the Word" we get a sensible, faithful rendering of the source text into English.
-CryptoLutheran
And what does any of that have to do with the KJV? Or with the KJV being the standard to judge other translations?
The KJ was translated using a Greek Text produced without the rules of Textual Criticism developed long after the KJ was published.
When Erasmus published his Greek text, he did so using his knowledge of the vast MSS he had previous access to. Erasmus, like the other scholars of his day, believed in what we now refer to as derivative inspiration. He, by having both knowledge of, and access to a huge selection of Greek MSS, used the MSS from the Byzantine family because he knew they were of the greatest quality, not to mention quantity.
However, after Semler taught his disciples his beliefs concerning the inspiration of Scripture, (or more correctly addresses stated, his lack thereof), they developed rules to remove those texts (from the Bible) which they believed were not inspired. This was the bases of the development of the rules of Textual Criticism.
You may want to do a bit of research on Johann Salomo Semler and his disciples
Please tell me that isn't your argument! Anyone with any knowledge of English and Greek is fully aware that English and Greek syntax differ greatly.
For example, I'm sure you understand that "καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν" it is improper English syntax to say, "and the word was with the God". English syntax is English syntax, and Greek syntax is Greek syntax; we learn that in Greek 101 when learning about nouns and articles.
English relies on word order, while Greek relies on the endings of words.
I'm not here to hold Greek lessons, nor recieve them. Please don't assume I'm a complete idiot.
The KJ was translated using a Greek Text produced without the rules of Textual Criticism developed long after the KJ was published.
When Erasmus published his Greek text, he did so using his knowledge of the vast MSS he had previous access to. Erasmus, like the other scholars of his day, believed in what we now refer to as derivative inspiration. He, by having both knowledge of, and access to a huge selection of Greek MSS, used the MSS from the Byzantine family because he knew they were of the greatest quality, not to mention quantity.
However, after Semler taught his disciples his beliefs concerning the inspiration of Scripture, (or more correctly addresses stated, his lack thereof), they developed rules to remove those texts (from the Bible) which they believed were not inspired. This was the bases of the development of the rules of Textual Criticism.
And that started teh downfall of the modern church into the age of Laodecia!
they developed rules to remove those texts (from the Bible) which they believed were not inspired. This was the bases of the development of the rules of Textual Criticism.