Is it possible to have a rational discussion about Bible versions...

trophy33 · Apr 1, 2019

FireDragon76 said:
"Simplified" being a nice way to say that sometimes it's so bad it's broken Greek, perhaps. For instance:

In that case American English is so bad and broken UK English...

And UK English is bad and broken mixture of French/Latin/Saxon languages from the era of William the Conqueror.

And French is a broken language of something what was before that, probably a mixture of Latin and pagan language of Franks.

And Latin is a broken language of....

Jonaitis · Apr 2, 2019

I enjoy the King James and Geneva's flowery and archaic English. Although, for daily reading, quotations, and almost every other use I would prefer the English Standard Version. I will use more than one translation to see how a passage is interpreted, to get a better understanding what is being conveyed in the passage. The New American Standard Version use to be my all-time favorite for being a little more literal than the ESV (John 3:16 leaves "begotten" in the former, and is removed in the latter).

HeartenedHeart · Apr 2, 2019

caspianrex said:
...without KJV-Only people trying to hijack the discussion?

As someone who is enthusiastic about many different English Bible versions, I have participated in discussions online about the topic for many years now. It never fails (and this forum is no exception) that eventually a KJVO person comes along, and begins posting about "corrupt Alexandrian manuscripts," and "missing verses."

Just over a decade ago, I created a group on Facebook that discusses Bible versions, and we've had to be quite strict in our policy about KJVO posts. We try to screen applicants to the group, to reject anyone who holds to a KJVO position. But occasionally people get in, and the posts begin: "Is your Bible MISSING VERSES?" That type of thing.

Sometimes I think that online forums are actually a fertile breeding ground for these kinds of conspiracy theories. People will type things on a computer that they would not say in public. Well, most people, maybe...

Anyway, if you have any rational thoughts to share about favorite Bible versions, feel free to comment, or join us at the Facebook group linked above. Peace be with you.

New to this thread.

There are Bibles that are missing verses? My first questions would be, how many verses, and what Bibles are those?

In contrast, are there Bibles that have added verses, and what Bibles are those?

I noticed that the post mentioned only English Bibles, but what about other languages? Are there other language Bibles that are missing or adding verses, and if so which ones?

I do not think I would want something that is deficient, neither would I desire something that was tampered with in addition to the historical material.

Can you give me some details/facts on your comments in regards these questions? It would be much appreciated thank you.

Interesting topic.

trophy33 · Apr 3, 2019

HeartenedHeart said:
I noticed that the post mentioned only English Bibles, but what about other languages? Are there other language Bibles that are missing or adding verses, and if so which ones?

Any European nation that had some reformation translation will have more verses in that translation and less in a modern translation.

For example in Czech, Bible of Kralice (from 1579, based on textus receptus) would have similar verses to the KJV, but modern czech translation like Czech Ecumenical Bible will be based on older Greek texts that have less verses.

I think it will be the same with German, French etc.

caspianrex · Jun 12, 2019

HeartenedHeart said:
New to this thread.

There are Bibles that are missing verses? My first questions would be, how many verses, and what Bibles are those?

In contrast, are there Bibles that have added verses, and what Bibles are those?

I noticed that the post mentioned only English Bibles, but what about other languages? Are there other language Bibles that are missing or adding verses, and if so which ones?

I do not think I would want something that is deficient, neither would I desire something that was tampered with in addition to the historical material.

Can you give me some details/facts on your comments in regards these questions? It would be much appreciated thank you.

Interesting topic.

Sorry, it's been a busy few months since the last time I checked into this forum. I'll try to give as concise answer to this reply as I can...

Since the King James Bible was published in 1611, archaeologists have found thousands more manuscripts of biblical material, much of it considerably earlier than the manuscript tradition behind the Greek text that the King James translators had available to them. Many textual experts have determined that the earlier texts, closer in time to the originals (which we don't have) are often shorter than the later texts behind the King James Bible. Therefore, if one compares many modern versions of Bibles to the KJV, one will often find that verses are "missing." This is because scholars have determined that many of those verses are not found in the earlier manuscript tradition.

Now, there is a range of legitimate disagreement among many reputable scholars as to which Greek manuscript groups are better and more authoritative. Some scholars prefer what's commonly known as the "Majority Text," which represents the vast majority of Greek manuscripts, while most scholars prefer the "Critical Text," which gives more weight to the earlier texts, of which there are fewer available. Most modern translations of the Bible are based on the Critical Text, but a few (NKJV, MEV, and a few more updates of the KJV) are still based on the Majority Text.

I don't know that I can speak much to translations in other languages. I do know that Luther's German Bible (which predated the KJV) was based on an earlier printed Greek NT that had a different version of 1 John 5:7-8, for example, so an argument over the wording of those verses has not really come up in the German translation tradition, as it has in the English translation tradition.

The above is an overly simplified description of the issues at hand, so if you want more detailed information, I would recommend James White's book, The King James Only Controversy, which I find to be an excellent introduction to many of the issues that involve the King James Bible and its differences from modern Bibles.

Radagast · Jun 22, 2019

FireDragon76 said:
"Simplified" being a nice way to say that sometimes it's so bad it's broken Greek, perhaps. For instance:

You cited Matthew 27:44, which says: In the same way even the criminals (τὸ δ’ αὐτὸ καὶ οἱ λῃσταὶ) who were crucified with him (οἱ συσταυρωθέντες σὺν αὐτῷ) taunted him (ὠνείδιζον αὐτόν).

There's nothing "bad" or "broken" about that Greek at all.

Dr. Jack · Jun 23, 2019

caspianrex said:
Welcome to the group!

I agree, it's always useful to compare different translations.

And your point about original languages is pertinent, even though that's one area where KJVOs often attack anyone who favors any modern version: they claim that there's no such thing as "original manuscripts," and that the Textus Receptus upon which the KJV is based is the only valid Greek text. Some go so far as to claim that the KJV itself is divinely re-inspired, so that wherever it may disagree with the TR, the KJV is always correct!

I'll step down from my soapbox about KJVOs, though. Hope you enjoy the discussion on the Facebook Bible Versions Group...

I would like to see if you can have a rational conversation with me, since I do hold the KJVO position.

In the above quote you said,

And your point about original languages is pertinent, even though that's one area where KJVOs often attack anyone who favors any modern version: they claim that there's no such thing as "original manuscripts," ...

Since I do not know you, (and you probably don't know me), let's not assume we have an agreed upon definition of "original manuscripts". When I use the phrase "original manuscripts" I am speaking of, or referring to, what is more correctly known as the "original autographs", meaning; the actual original documents of Scripture that were penned by the writers of Scripture, and NOT any of the thousands of copies that were produced from either ther "original autographs" themselves, or even a first or second generation copy.

I have been studying this issue for decades, and have not read a single article or book by either a either a proponent of the Bibles produced by the Erasmusian texts, or any Bibles produced by the Critical texts, that supports the idea that any "original autograph" is still extant today. If you have such evidence, I would welcome you to present it here, and now.

I have for years tried to present the historical record of why we have such a variance of Bibles today, especially the text of the New Testament; I have yet to have a single person be willing to discuss this history on the merits of history, and the long term effects that history has brought to the text of Scripture.

So I must ask you, Can you have, and are you willing to have, such a rational discussion, or, does bias against my position automatically disqualify the facts of history I can present, in a completely rational manner?

Dr. Jack · Jun 23, 2019

FireDragon76 said:
Ecclessia is very similar to the idea of a synagogue or congregation. Assembley sounds a bit too informal, like there's nothing really sacramental happening there. Our church uses the word congregation to refer to the people, and church is better reserved to refer to the building or the national denomination, generally (structures or institutions). The Greek word kyriakos actually means "(temple) pertaining to the Lord" and refers to the building itself, but in time was generalized to refer to the entire institution and people.

Pre-Reformation English people primarily had formal contact with Christianity through that building, keep that in mind before coming down too harshly on the KJV translators choices.

A brief look at the use of the word "church" in the NT of the KJB ...

1) Yes, there was a particular influence of the choice of the German "kirche" and the English "Church".
2) The theological difference between "church", and either "assembly", or "congregation". The words assembly and congregation only point out that people are "gathered", (which is only one element of the Greek "Ecclessia".

Notice:
"Strongs G1577
Greek: ἐκκλησία Transliteration: ekklēsia Pronunciation: ek-klay-see'-ah Definition: From a compound of G1537 and a derivative of G2564; a calling out that is (concretely) a popular meeting especially a religious congregation (Jewish synagogue or Christian community of members on earth or saints in heaven or both): - assembly church."

Strongs G1537
ἐκ
or ἐξ literal or figurative; direct or remote)
Derivation: a primary preposition denoting origin (the point whence action or motion proceeds), from, out (of place, time, or cause;

Strongs G2564
καλέω
to "call" (properly, aloud, but used in a variety of applications, directly or otherwise)

Hence, the Greek ἐκκλησία ekklēsia or "Ecclessia"
has two elements, not simply one. Yes, the church is an assembly, and even a congregation; but it is an assembly that has been "called out" from the world, to join in that assembly. Hence, the "church" is a particular type of assembly; which is the theological purpose of the use of the word "church".

robycop3 · Jun 30, 2019

There's a simple truth that kills the KJVO myth - IT HAS NO SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT. Nothing that KJVOs say matters without Scriptural support.

pescador · Jul 5, 2019

One must never forget that all English bibles are translations. There are significant differences between the source documents and the translated documents because... it is impossible to create a word-for-word translation because of differences of word meanings, grammar, syntax, idioms, and vast cultural differences that exist.

Translating is an art, not a mechanical task. Neither the King James (authorized by the king for a specific reason!) nor any other translation is perfect. In fact, it cannot be.

While the King James may have lofty and beautiful language, it is less understandable to today's readers than modern English. BTW, that is not opinion but fact.

The Bible warns in several places about worshiping idols, the KJV included.

Daniel Marsh · Jul 10, 2019

bekkilyn said:
Thanks, I've applied to join the group.

I find it crucial to use many different translations as well as the original manuscripts, due to levels of translation error and bias. Even word for word may have bias because there is a choice of English words that could be used and one choice could lean a meaning in a different direction than another choice of word.

where is the group?

Is it possible to have a rational discussion about Bible versions...

trophy33

Well-Known Member

More options

Jonaitis

Soli Deo Gloria

More options

HeartenedHeart

Active Member

More options

trophy33

Well-Known Member

More options

caspianrex

Bible collector

More options

Radagast

comes and goes

More options

Dr. Jack

Well-Known Member

More options

Dr. Jack

Well-Known Member

More options

robycop3

Newbie

More options

pescador

Wise old man

More options

Daniel Marsh

Well-Known Member

More options

Similar threads

Is it possible to have a rational discussion about Bible versions...

Well-Known Member

Soli Deo Gloria

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Bible collector

comes and goes

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Wise old man

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency