KJV only debate

[JVD]

I also believe that we lose something with the modern translations. The 17th century English was a much richer language than what we use today, and I think we're poorer for reducing our written communication to the lowest possible intellectual denominator.

With this I completely agree. I am a long way from KJVO but I do use the KJV more than any other and I am constantly amazed at the beautiful use of language. We are missing something in our modern english.

 

[sobresaliente]

With this I completely agree. I am a long way from KJVO but I do use the KJV more than any other and I am constantly amazed at the beautiful use of language. We are missing something in our modern english.

The King James Bible is one of the finest examples of Renaissance prose we have today...it is very beautiful and timeless

 

[Dmckay]

********** The King James Version (KJV), translated in A.D. 1611 and “authorized” by the king of England to be read in the churches of his realm, has blessed the hearts of millions of English readers. The present century, however, has witnessed the production of scores of new versions, and the end is not in sight. Some of these are rather casual, one–man efforts, more paraphrase the translation, but others are major undertakings performed by groups of outstanding scholars (many of them thoroughly evangelical) with the benefit of extended consultation and generous financing.
********** Partly because of this bewildering array of new translations, there have recently appeared tracts, pamphlets, and even a few books vigorously defending the King James Version and practically anathematizing all others as liberal plots to undermine the Word of God. Some Christians are led to imagine that the King James Version possesses a sanctity that makes it unique among the others. A brief review of the situation would seem to be in order.
*
What Is Meant By Inspiration?
********** Evangelical Christians use the word “inspiration” in a special sense in relation to the Bible. The term is drawn from 2 Timothy 3:16, “All Scripture is given by inspiration* of God.”Most scholars recognize that this translation is inadequate, but the word is so firmly entrenched in our theological language that the only course open is to explain its special meaning. A very literal rendering would be, “All Scripture is God–breathed.” Alva J. McClain expressed it this way: “To say that all Scripture is inspired of God is to say that all Scripture is the direct product of the creative breath of God.”
********** When speaking of “inspiration” regarding the Bible, we use the term in two ways. The first of these is indicated in 2 Timothy 3:16, which describes the Scriptures themselves as “given by inspiration of God.” What was “God–breathed” was actually written by the Biblical writers. Technically speaking, this quality of inspiration applies only to to original documents (that is the autographs), not to any copies made from them nor to any translations made of them. All subsequent copies or translations are “inspired” only to the extent that they accurately represent the autographs.
********** The second usage describes the activity of God with regard to the human authors, as stated in 2 Peter 1:21. Though the word “Inspiration” does not occur in this passage, the idea is clearly present that the human authors did not possess any unusual genius but were “moved” by the Holy Spirit. When we speak of the apostles as writing “under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.” it is in this special sense that the term is used.
*
Reliable Copies
********** Sometimes it is argued that if inspiration applies only to the autographs, and if the autographs are now lost, then it is a meaningless doctrine and of no importance today. The argument is without value, however, because there are in existence over five thousand copies of the inspired originals, and the substantial agreement among the copies is clear indication that the true text has been preserved.
********** There is in the National Archives Building in Washington, D.C., the original document of the United States Constitution. It is a valuable national treasure and is carefully guarded. Thousands view it every year. Yet if the original should be stolen or destroyed, the government would not collapse, for there are sufficient copies in existence to demonstrate what the original document said. In the same way the thousands pf Biblical manuscripts in existence have preserved the contents of the autographs beyond any reasonable doubt.
*
How Did We Get Our Present Bible?
********** The history of the Bible, from the autographs in Hebrew (O.T.) and Greek (N.T.) to the English translations which we use today, is a fascinating story. because the books of the Bible were all written hundreds of years (in some cases, thousands) before the invention of the printing press, all copies had to be made by hand. These books were treasured by God’s people, and were handled and copied with special care. At various times translations were made from the Hebrew and Greek into such languages as Latin, Coptic, and Syriac. Yet in spite of every precaution, variations (most of them very slight) did occur in these handmade copies. As the result of such human errors no two manuscripts containing a major portion of the Scripture are exactly alike.
*
The Textus Receptus
********** Manuscripts continued to be transmitted by handcopying from the first to the sixteenth century. The first Greek New Testaments to be printed were the editions of Erasmus (A.D. 1516) and the Complutensian Polyglot (A.D. 1522). These editions were based on the kind of text which was commonly available in the Middle Ages, and scholars refer to it as the Textus Receptus. The Textus Receptus or “TR” is not a manuscript at all, but a type of text which is found in the majority of manuscripts, most of them relatively late. The printed Old Testament text was based on the text of the Masoretes, who were Jewish scholars during the sixth to the ninth centuries A.D. Until the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in 1947, this was the oldest Hebrew source for the text of the Old Testament.
*
Other Sources
********** From the eighteenth century until the present, however, scholars have devoted themselves strenuously to the study of the text, and many new manuscripts have come to light. Some New Testament manuscripts have been recovered which date from the third or forth centuries A.D. A few scraps are even dated in the second century. In 1947, the world was electrified by the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls which provided Old Testament Hebrew manuscripts one thousand years older than any currently possessed.
********** The Masoretic text is still the basic text of the Old Testament (the Dead Sea Scrolls do not contain the entire Old Testament), but the materials for New Testament study are much more plentiful. From the thousands of manuscripts now available, students of the text are able to study them line by line, note the variants, and group the manuscripts into several broad categories. Each of these groups has common characteristics, particularly their agreement in recording certain variants. Such names as Western, Alexandrian (or Neutral), Caesarean, and Byzantine (or Syrian) are used to designate them. Now the question must be asked:
*
Which Text–type Is Most Reliable?
********** Some of the text–types have not been agreed upon by scholars generally (for example, the Caesarean text has been identified chiefly in mark, but not in the rest of the New Testament). However, three of them are sufficiently distinct to allow thorough study. The Western text, although apparently very old, is characterized by the widest variation from the majority of manuscripts, and suggests considerable scribal freedom in the handling of the text. Most scholars (regardless of their theological views) have relegated the Western text to a subordinate place, although recognizing that in isolated instances its variants could be the true reading.
*
The Byzantine Text Family
********** The Byzantine text (called the Syrian by Westcott and Hort, and the Majority Text by some today) is the sort of text found in the vast majority of manuscripts (variously estimated as 80–90 percent).* It is this text which was most readily available to the King James translators and formed the basis of the 1611 version, though in a few cases the King James Version varies from the Textus Receptus. even though the bulk of our manuscripts fall into Byzantine Family, they are not our earliest ones. No extant Greek manuscript from the fourth century or earlier has this kind of text (although individual readings may coincide with it). To argue as some do that God would not have left the church with a less than perfect text from the fifth century on is to misunderstand the workings of God’s providence in preserving the text. As a matter of fact, there are divergences even among manuscripts of the Byzantine type. Furthermore, what about God’s providence during the first four centuries? God in His preserving work did protect His Word, in spite of human frailty in transcription.
*
The Alexandrian Text Family
********** The Alexandrian (or Egyptian or “Neutral”) text is found in far fewer manuscripts than the Byzantine, but they are the oldest ones we possess (that is, closest to the autographs). The papyrus discoveries in recent decades support this kind of text. It formed the basis of the American Standard Version (1901), and most of the newer versions today. This text has commended itself to scholars because of the age of the manuscripts in which it is found, and the intrinsic merits of its readings.
********** Defenders of the Byzantine text often point to the fact that the dry climate of Egypt has preserved these manuscripts, and if we had equally ancient manuscripts from other areas they might well support the Byzantine text–type. It is also pointed out that a late manuscript could have been copied from a very early one. While this conceivably could be true, the fact remains that the Alexandrian–type manuscripts are the earliest ones we have. On the basis, then, of the evidence we possess (not upon speculation of “ifs”), the Alexandrian text has claimed the support of most scholars (evangelical as well as liberal, with exceptions, of course, in both groups).
********** One common objection raised by Textus Receptus defenders is that the Alexandrian Family deletes or at least weakens the deity of Christ. It is noted, for example, that in a relatively few cases the names “Christ” and “Lord” are omitted when referring to Jesus. Yet these same manuscripts include the names “Christ” or “Lord” hundreds of times in other places. If these were really deletions from the true text (rather than additions to the Byzantine text—an equally plausible possibility), the attempt to delete the doctrines of the deity of Christ from the text was a total failure, for this truth is still abundantly clear in all manuscripts of the Alexandrian text.
********** Furthermore, the deity of Christ is expressed more strongly in numerous passages of the Alexandrian text than it is in the Textus Receptus. For example, John 1:18 calls Jesus “only begotten God.” 2 Peter 1:1 refers to Him as “our God and Savior Jesus Christ” (rather than “God and our Savior Jesus,” which could imply separate persons). The objection is more superficial than substantive. The most consistent user of the Alexandrian text in ancient times was Athanasius, well known for his strong defense of the deity of Christ against the heresy of Arianism.
*
What Is the Value of the King James Version?
********** In summation, the King James Version is a fine and readable version. It is “inspired,” however, only to be extent that it conveys the meaning of the autographs, just as any other translation. In general it does this very well. But it is not perfect. Two problems must be noted. (1) There are some poor or erroneous translations. Word usage has changed since 1611. Furthermore, there are some translations which rest on exceedingly poor manuscript authority. One example is I John 5:7b–8a, for which there is no Greek manuscript evidence at all earlier than the fifteenth century. (2) The King* James Version is becoming less and less intelligible to young Americans (whether we like it or not), and if its archaic expressions do not speak meaningfully to them, to that extent it is failing to communicate God’s inspired revelation.
*
Essential Agreement
********** It needs to be remembered that all the differences between the Alexandrian and Byzantine text–types are not nearly as great as might be supposed. If one could remove the Old English style from the King James Version so that the comparison would be fairer, the differences between these text–types could be seen by noting the differences between the King James Version and the American Standard Version. The Gospel is crystal clear in either version. It is regrettable that an issue is being made over this matter in evangelical circles, especially when some extremists are making one’s attitude toward the King James Version an article of faith, and unwarrantedly raising suspicions against those who do not. The issue is forcing many Christians to make a choice when they lack the necessary knowledge* and skill to do so. How much better it would be to thank God that His Word has been preserved intact throughout the centuries, and that the wealth of manuscripts assures us that none of the words have been lost. In a few cases we may not be certain which of several variants is the original, but the problem is an “embarrassment of riches,” not of loss.

 

[Dmckay]

Just today I had to leave another Christian forum because after posting there for several months it was discovered that I am not a KJV only adherant. But not only did it have to be KJV only, but the 1611 version. As I was informed to use any thing else is, deceitful, stupid or both." I was questioned because my citations of Bible verses didn't match their 1611s and they wanted to know what version I was using. I explained that I use the original languages and translate on the fly which might explain why I wasn't using King James English. This wasn't good enough if they couldn't check it out exactly in the 1611 I might be trying to slip in heresy because only the 1611 KJV was the inerrant Word of G-d.

I tried to explain that given the background of the Greek text (the supposed TR of the Elvezir Brothers that they might want to consider something a bit more accurate. But that only makes me, "deceitful, stupid or both."

Textus Receptus, or "Received Text," (abbreviated TR) is the name we use for the first published Greek text of the New Testament. For many centuries, it was the standard text of the Greek Bible. The name arose from the work of the kinsmen Bonaventure and Abraham Elzevir, who said of their 1633 edition, "Textum ergo habes, nunc ab omnibus receptum" -- "So [the reader] has the text which all now receive."

The irony is that the Received Text is not actually a single edition, but a sort of text-type of its own consisting of hundreds of extremely similar but not identical editions. Nor do any of its various flavours agree exactly with any extant text-type or manuscript. Thus the need, when referring to the Received Text, to specify which received text we refer to.

The Origin of the Textus Receptus

Although printing with movable type was in use no later than 1456, it was many years before a Greek New Testament was printed. This is not as surprising as it sounds; the Greek minuscule hand of the late fifteenth century was extremely complicated, with many diverse ligatures and custom symbols. Cutting a Greek typeface required the creation of hundreds of symbols -- far more than a Latin typeface. Printers probably did not relish the idea. (It is worth noting that the Complutensian Polyglot invented a new type of Greek print for its edition.)

It was not until the early sixteenth century that Cardinal Ximenes decided to embark on a Greek and Latin edition of the New Testament -- the famous Complutensian Polyglot. The New Testament volume of this work was printed in 1514 -- but it was not published until after 1520. This left a real opportunity for an enterprising printer who could get out an edition quickly.

Such a printer was John Froben of Basle. Apparently having heard of the Complutension edition, he was determined to beat it into print. Fortunately, he had the contacts to pull this off.

Froben decided to approach Desiderius Erasmus, one of the most notable (if rather humanistic) scholars of his generation. The proposal appears to have been transmitted on April 17, 1515. Work began in the fall of that year, and the work was pushed through the press in February of 1516.

For a project that had taken fifty years to get started, the success of Erasmus's edition (which contained his Greek text in parallel with his own Latin version) was astonishing. The first printing soon sold out, and by 1519 a new edition was required. Three more would follow, each somewhat improved over the last.

It is sad to report that such a noble undertaking was so badly handled (all the more so since it became the basis of Luther's German translation, and later -- with some slight modifications -- of the English King James Version). The speed with which the book went through the press meant that it contained literally thousands of typographical errors. What is more, the text was hastily and badly edited from a few late manuscripts

 

[Nichole17]

I personally love KJV because it is the least watered down, because it's the first version of the Bible translated into English, so it's very clear. If you don't like all the old english you can use NKJV, which is just as accurate, or quite close without all the "thees" and "thous."

 

[Dmckay]

Continuation on the TR:

Erasmus's first edition was a great success; some 3300 copies of his first two editions were sold. The success of Erasmus's edition soon called forth new Greek testaments, all of them based largely on his. The first of these was published by Aldus Manutius in 1518 -- but although it contained an independent text of the Septuagint (the first such to be printed), its New Testament text was taken almost verbatim from Erasmus, including even the typographical errors. Hence the first truly new publication was Erasmus's own edition of 1519. This featured almost the same text as the 1516 edition, but with the majority (though by no means all!) of the errors of the press corrected. It also features some new readings, believed by Scrivener to come from 3eap

Erasmus's third edition of 1522 contained one truly unfortunate innovation: The "Three Heavenly Witnesses" in 1 John 5:7-8. These were derived from the recently-written Codex 61, and (as the famous story goes) included by Erasmus "for the sake of his oath." Sadly, they have been found in almost every TR edition since.

There followed a great welter of editions, all slightly different (based on such figures as I have seen, it would appear that editions of the Textus Receptus typically vary at between one hundred and two hundred places, though very few of these differences are more than orthographic). None of these editions were of any particular note (though the 1534 text of Simon Colinæus is sometimes mentioned as significant, since it included some variant readings). It was not until 1550 that the next great edition of the Textus Receptus was published. This was the work of Robert Stephanus (Estienne), whose third edition became one of the two "standard" texts of the TR. (Indeed, it is Stephanus's name that gave rise to the common symbol for the Textus Receptus.) Stephanus included the variants of over a dozen manuscripts -- including Codices Bezae (D) and Regius (L) -- in the margin. In his fourth edition (1551), he also added the verse numbers which are still used in all modern editions. The Stephanus edition became the standard Textus Receptus of Britain, although of course it was not yet known by that name. (The esteem in which the Textus Receptus was already held, however, is shown by Scrivener's report that there are 119 places where all of Stephanus's manuscripts read against the TR, but Stephanus still chose to print the reading found in previous TR editions.)

Stephanus's editions were followed by those of Theodore de Bèza (1519-1605), the Protestant reformer who succeeded Calvin. These were by no means great advances over what had gone before; although Beza had access to the codex which bears his name, as well as the codex Claromontanus, he seems to have made little if any use of them. A few of his readings have been accused of theological bias; the rest seem largely random. Beza's editions, published between 1565 and 1611, are remembered more for the sake of their editor (and the fact that they were used by the translators of the King James Bible) than for their text.

The next great edition of the Textus Receptus is the Elzevir text already mentioned earlier. First published in 1624, with minor changes for the edition of 1633, it had the usual minor variants from Stephanus (of which Scrivener counted 287), but nothing substantial; the Elzevirs were printers, not critics.

The Elzevir text, which became the primary TR edition on the continent, was the last version to be significant for its text. From this time on, editions were marked more by their marginal material, as scholars such as Mill, Wettstein, and later Griesbach began examining and arranging manuscripts. None of these were able to break away from the TR, but all pointed the way to texts free of its influence.