KJV Only?

[singlecandle]

A lot of people that I have met affirm that the KJV is the only reliable
translation, but I had heard somewhere that the text for the NASB actually dates back BEFORE the KJV therefore being closer to the original
manuscripts.

Which group is right?

 

[Keachian]

A lot of people that I have met affirm that the KJV is the only reliable
translation, but I had heard somewhere that the text for the NASB actually dates back BEFORE the KJV therefore being closer to the original
manuscripts.

Which group is right?

It's not just about which texts date closer to the originals, it's more about which texts are better, the KJV onlyist argument is that because the texts behind the KJV were used by the Reformers they are correct, however if you start to question them about other Bibles based on the same texts from before the KJV they'll refuse them as well.

 

[singlecandle]

It's not just about which texts date closer to the originals, it's more about which texts are better

Absolutely! I am just now discovering that!

however if you start to question them about other Bibles based on the same texts from before the KJV they'll refuse them as well.

Do you know which of those translations are available-besides the Bishop's and Geneva?

 

[Keachian]

Absolutely! I am just now discovering that!



Do you know which of those translations are available-besides the Bishop's and Geneva?

Do you mean in print form? I've found most of them online at one time or another.

 

[abysmul]

A lot of people that I have met affirm that the KJV is the only reliable
translation, but I had heard somewhere that the text for the NASB actually dates back BEFORE the KJV therefore being closer to the original
manuscripts.

Which group is right?

I'm sure someone here will eventually link you to a page with it, but the original KJV has an interesting preface that would completely contradict a KJ Only stance.

 

[singlecandle]

Do you mean in print form? I've found most of them online at one time or another.

In any form, really! Do you remember the links?

 

[singlecandle]

I'm sure someone here will eventually link you to a page with it, but the original KJV has an interesting preface that would completely contradict a KJ Only stance.

Yes, while reading another previous thread in this forum the light
bulb finally came on-the Anglican church had much influence over the KJV
translation hence its name: "King James".

I don't know if there will be much of a difference between the Protestant
translations before it but I would like to find out.

I get real tired of hearing people bash the people who don't use KJV.

 

[mark273]

In any form, really! Do you remember the links?

I am just jumping in here, but with regard to pre-KJV English and other Bibles online, check out this website:

Bibles-Online.net | Ancient Bibles Online | Brought to you by GreatSite.com

This is a fabulous site on which I have spent quite a bit of time.

 

[singlecandle]

Thank you, Mark!

 

[Silvanus1]

A lot of people that I have met affirm that the KJV is the only reliable
translation, but I had heard somewhere that the text for the NASB actually dates back BEFORE the KJV therefore being closer to the original
manuscripts.

Which group is right?

Unfortunately no translation is perfect no matter how old it is. The best thing to do is to read it in the original languages. Also, there is a story to every translation such as which manuscript or combination of manuscripts the translators chose, the interpretations used in the translation, and even the culture of the times. That's partly why we need new revisions as interpretations become clearer and as language evolves. But no matter how they do it, a lot of meaning is lost in translation.

For example, after I learned Greek, going from Greek to English in the New Testament is like going from a 3-D picture to a 2-D picture. A small example is the word "life." In Greek there are 3 words for life (bios for physical life, psuche for the psychological life, and zoe for the life of God; you can find the Greek spelling elsewhere) while in English we only have one word, life. Some translations, however, do not tell you which life the verse is actually talking about. The KJV I have translates Luke 17:33 as:

Whosoever shall seek to save his life shall lose it; and whosoever shall lose his life shall preserve it.

What is the life here? The Greek says psuche, the psychological life or the life of the soul. So that, at least for me, changes the way I look at this verse. So it doesn't mean that we give up our physical life necessarily but the life of our sol which is deeper.

The NASB I have is a bit better which translates the verse as:

Whoever seeks to keep his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life will preserve it.

Then the NASB has a note saying that "life" can also be translated as "soul." The newer KJV may have something similar.

Though I do have my favorites, I would never say such and such a translation is the most reliable because they all have their faults.

 

[Bro in Christ]

greek and Hebrew in orginal lauguage

 

[Heterodoxus]

Do you know which of those translations are available-besides the Bishop's and Geneva?

Here is a link to an image that will show you the major biblical manuscripts and early Bible versions which predate all modern Bible versions: http://www.swapmeetdave.com/Bible/Bible-Growth-750x950.gif

Copy and paste this link into your browser to go there. If necessary, you can click on the image to enlarge it.

You can perform an online search by name/title to see if any are available in print either commercially or online. Keep in mind that the further back in time you go, the more difficult it might be to read the text without training in how to read and interpret biblical languages.

 

[Second Phoenix]

greek and Hebrew in orginal lauguage

Uh, Greek and Hebrew are the original languages. That doesn't make sense.

 

[Keachian]

In any form, really! Do you remember the links?

Wycliffe and the Geneva are on biblegateway.com
You can likely find scans on the Internet Archive of all the other ones

 

[Bro in Christ]

Uh, Greek and Hebrew are the original languages. That doesn't make sense.

KJV only which was written in 1600's

those christians must have been lost

 

[Second Phoenix]

KJV only which was written in 1600's

those christians must have been lost

What? Can you write more clearly about what you are trying to convey?

 

[Bro in Christ]

KJV was written in the 1600's . How did anyone believe God word since they did not have KJV

 

[josephearl]

Bible translation has come a long, long way since 1611. I prayed a lot about this and feel the Lord has continually pointed me to the NASB 1995 Update. NKJV is also good and the NIV in the NT is excellent also. To me the value in the KJV is in the language difference. The novelty of it enables the verses to stick in my memory more. I get the same effect when someone teaches in a foreign language and then hear the translation into English or I hear someone with a foreign accent minister. It quickens my ear to listen a bit more.

 

[OzSpen]

KJV was written in the 1600's . How did anyone believe God word since they did not have KJV

Why don't you take a read of 'Ancient Versions'. The Old Latin Version (as opposed to the Latin Vulgate) dates to AD 157.

Many Bible quotes can be accumulated through reading the early Church Fathers. See examples in 'Early Church Fathers quotes by topic'.

Oz

 

[Bro in Christ]

KJV only is the topic? is it not