textual variants

[JGiddings]

JG,

The New World Translation is one that I would never recommend, because it is a dishonest translation with regard to Jesus' being God in John 1:1. I have not done a detailed examination of the NWT and how it agrees or not with the Greek (I read and have taught NT Greek).

I highly recommend the ESV, NIV, NLT, NASB and apart from a minimal number of questions here and there have found the NRSV to be a reliable translation. In my Bible reading this year, I'm reading through the NLT. For a new Christian, I'd recommend the NLT. I love its simple and straight forward English. As a study Bible, I prefer the ESV because I find it reads more smoothly than, say, the NASB.

In Christ, Oz

I have them all and agree with your assesment in regards to them. I just got an NLT reference bible and love it. Perfect for old farts like me to just read and enjoy the Word of God! I'm past the theological study comparison part of my journey to faith.

 

[JGiddings]

This KJVO stuff is ridiculous. Hard heads and misinformed judgement and downright lies if you ask me.
Yeah right, the original texts are worthless and the KJV is God's translation and we are all going to hell due to the fact that we use other translations.
This is an affront to fellow Christians, and it does nothing to show the love that the Body of Christ is SUPPOSED to show towards each other. It's an embarrassment to me.

 

[OzSpen]

I have them all and agree with your assesment in regards to them. I just got an NLT reference bible and love it. Perfect for old farts like me to just read and enjoy the Word of God! I'm past the theological study comparison part of my journey to faith.

For an old bloke like me who is completing his PhD in NT, I find the LNT to be a delightful Bible to read for edification. I was aware of it, but my son completed his MDiv at the Baptist theological college here in Brisbane and he had done his Greek and Hebrew and recommended more time in the NLT. I've done it and found it very edifying.

It's great to read a Bible that makes difficult passages simpler in its English.

Oz

 

[preacherinblack]

Ok another bible related question readability vs accuracy , Which is better? would you sacrifice accuracy to the manuscripts for easy readability or put in its complete (i.e.verbal, formal etc etc..) equivalent in our language of scripture?

 

[OzSpen]

Ok another bible related question readability vs accuracy , Which is better? would you sacrifice accuracy to the manuscripts for easy readability or put in its complete (i.e.verbal, formal etc etc..) equivalent in our language of scripture?

That's a false dilemma logical fallacy.

As one who has done my share of translating from the Greek to English, I have found that there is no need to sacrifice accuracy for readability. However, dynamic equivalence translation (meaning-for-meaning like NIV, NLT) tends to be easier to read.

 

[Wearecommandedtojudge]

Well said.

My KJV that I used long ago is a 1769 revision and not the 1611 original. We know that the KJVs being used now are not the same as the 1611 edition because the English spelling has changed. Take a read of the spelling of some Bible chapters for the KJV 1611 edition HERE.

NO, NOT WELL SAID. Is my Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin (Leather, Easton press) not the same as the original one he published because some of the spelling has been changed?

If I have any book that is a reproduction of an old one and the spelling was changed because words are spelled weird in the originally that book is no different then the original in contant!!!! It has the same words they are just spelled differently.

Doo yu want a booc too bee spelled all wily nilly lic thiss?

To say the KJV we have today is different then the 1611 because of spelling differences can be very deceptive. I don't even think the percentage of differences in any of the texts we have that are due to spelling should be counted.

 

[Keachian]

Here is a listing/explanation of the changes, yes the majority of them are spelling, however the change in italicised words is a fundamental change in translation and so must be counted, the changes in punctuation can also be a great change of meaning and so on.
http://www.bible-researcher.com/canon10.html

 

[Wearecommandedtojudge]

Here is a listing/explanation of the changes, yes the majority of them are spelling, however the change in italicised words is a fundamental change in translation and so must be counted, the changes in punctuation can also be a great change of meaning and so on.
Changes in the King James version

So spelling, punctuation, and italised words are major, big, humungous changes but removing hundreds of verses is not a major change and is no big deal nor is changing not based on Hebrew/Greek texts but because the translators falsely thought there was a contradiction?

Let me show you a REAL change that unlike spelling is an actual change and not just nitpicking.

KJV
“And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses and chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen” (I Kings 4:26), “And Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses for his chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen” (II Chronicles 9:25)

NIV
Solomon had four thousand stalls for chariot horses, and twelve thousand horses. (I Kings 4:26) Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots, and twelve thousand horses, which he kept in the chariot cities and also with him in Jerusalem. (II Chronicles 9:25)

NLT
Solomon had 4,000 stalls for his chariot horses, and he had 12,000 horses. (I Kings 4:26) Solomon had 4,000 stalls for his horses and chariots, and he had 12,000 horses. He stationed some of them in the chariot cities, and some near him in Jerusalem.(II Chronicles 9:25)

NET
Solomon had 4,000 stalls for his chariot horses and 12,000 horses. (I Kings 4:26) Solomon had 4,000 stalls for his chariot horses and 12,000 horses. He kept them in assigned cities and in Jerusalem. (II Chronicles 9:25)

They WRONGLY assumed there was a copyist error or mistranslation and so THEY OUTRIGHT CHANGED WHAT IT SAID! This is not a problem. One passage tells of the number of horses while the other tells of the number of stalls for horses and chariots. They had ten horses and ten men per chariot.

The same ratio is seen in (II Samuel 10:18), “And the Syrians fled before Israel; and David slew the men of seven hundred chariots of the Syrians.” I Chronicles 19:18 says, “But the Syrians fled before Israel; and David slew of the Syrians seven thousand men which fought in chariots.” (See also: II Samuel 8:4; I Chronicles 18:4).


The ESV it appears got this right.

 

[preacherinblack]

How much does the alexandrine manuscripts agree with the byzantine text ?and how much does the TR agree with byzantine text percentile was? and who how doe all these texts agree together?

 

[OzSpen]

Wear,

You may not have liked how I said it, but the fact remains that the KJV used today is not the 1611 edition but a 1769 revision.

This is explained in 'Changes in the King James Version' and 'Revisions of the King James Bible'.

Oz

NO, NOT WELL SAID. Is my Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin (Leather, Easton press) not the same as the original one he published because some of the spelling has been changed?

If I have any book that is a reproduction of an old one and the spelling was changed because words are spelled weird in the originally that book is no different then the original in contant!!!! It has the same words they are just spelled differently.

Doo yu want a booc too bee spelled all wily nilly lic thiss?

To say the KJV we have today is different then the 1611 because of spelling differences can be very deceptive. I don't even think the percentage of differences in any of the texts we have that are due to spelling should be counted.

 

[JacobLaw]

This KJVO stuff is ridiculous. Hard heads and misinformed judgement and downright lies if you ask me.
Yeah right, the original texts are worthless and the KJV is God's translation and we are all going to hell due to the fact that we use other translations.
This is an affront to fellow Christians, and it does nothing to show the love that the Body of Christ is SUPPOSED to show towards each other. It's an embarrassment to me.

Ridiculous? It is ridiculous to think it is ridiculous, it is hard to image that Christian are dismiss as ridiculous by those claiming to be Christians. Now if the King James Bible Christian is correct it isn't going to bode well for those using versions otherwise; maybe only then the ridiculousness of it will not be so ridiculous.​

 

[Wearecommandedtojudge]

Wear,

You may not have liked how I said it, but the fact remains that the KJV used today is not the 1611 edition but a 1769 revision.

This is explained in 'Changes in the King James Version' and 'Revisions of the King James Bible'.

Oz

They are both the same just as the Copy of Ben Franklin's auto-bio that I have from Easton press is the same as the book he first published.

Different font and spelling is a big deal to you yet hundreds of verses missing and even verses that were DILIBERATLY mistranslated because the translators mistakenly thought something was a copyist error is not a big deal to you.

This is hypocrisy.

BTW I'm not KJO and can even point to one thing I think was mistranslated in the KJ. But it is the most accurate translation. Also some people here are being ridiculous and hypocritical in their condemnation of KJV Onlyists!!!!! I MEAN I POINTED TO SEVERAL VERSIONS THAT HAVE OUTRIGHT (((DELIBERATE))) MISTRANSLATIONS!!!! Where it says 40,000 and they translated it 4,000 because they mistakenly thought it must be a copyist error. Not to mention the umpteen however many verses that are missing. These things don't seem to bother you though but you are bothered by SPELLING CHANGES AND A CHANGE IN FONT!

The original Auto-Bio of Benjamin Franklin had spelling differences and a different font then my copy but its the same book!

Also many of my KJV's are the 1611 version!!!!

 

[preacherinblack]

what are textual supports for the the Alexandrian text-type from the manuscripts(copies), Ancient versions and paternalistic citations? i would like to know because if theirs support over the large geo-graphic location of the roman empire were other people use the Alexandrian text-type that would be helpful to know. could y"all give me a list of ancient foreign language versions that use the Alexandrian text-type?

 

[Keachian]

Early manuscripts always are Alexandrian in type

 

[Keachian]

We may also be able trace that the earliest Old Latin and Syrian versions of the New Testament to be more Alexandrian than Byzantine, I haven't looked into that sort of question though it does seem a good one, I'll see what I can find for you

 

[preacherinblack]

We may also be able trace that the earliest Old Latin and Syrian versions of the New Testament to be more Alexandrian than Byzantine, I haven't looked into that sort of question though it does seem a good one, I'll see what I can find for you

ok thank you