Featured What is your understanding of KJVO?

You are absolutely correct. The difference is what you and I consider to be “decent translations.” You consider translations based on the Critical text as decent. I consider translations based on the Traditional text as decent translations.

 

Yes, that is a very helpful way to explain it. Thank you.

 

In reality and IMO that can only be said with an element of faith because we can't know for certainty according to empirical evidence.

e.g. An example you gave:
1 Timothy 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

Whether God manifest in the flesh is Os or theos for example. Yes I have read the arguments between Burgon and W&H (Burgon, The Revision Revised).

Though it is upper case "He"in modern CT translations W&H argued for "os".

I believe Burgon was correct and hold the KJV as derivatively correct (better than uppercase "He").

There are many others of even more complicated debate - e.g Johannine Comma (the KJV is correct).

AOBTW I believe the office of "bishop" is legitimate.

 

No, not actually as some modern translations are still in flux. RE NIV, NKJV...
Perhaps some day.

 

"Bishop" - I can't prove it but to me the office of Bishop is a man who is an elderly pastor or deacon in an area of more than one local church (for whatever reason). One who has wisdom and a mentor to those seeking an office of pastor or deacon.

Yes, almost the definition of a Methodist "Bishop" minus the "Episcopal" authority over the other pastors.

Start the bonfire, sing the Te Deum.

 

Martin, the KJV cannot be improved any more than a Shakespeare play, as all its makers are dead, as is The Bard. I believe only its original makers could've improved it, as anyone else doing it would impress their own thoughts & attitudes into it, as Blayney did when he made his 1769 edition.

And it certainly be improved, such as replacing "Easter" with "passover" in Acts 12:4 and "thou shalt not do murder" in Ex. 20:13. However, as its makers are all gone, we should leave it as is.

 

I tend to avoid the KJV, and those who consider the use of any other translation as lesser, flawed or heretical.

Without addressing any difficulties, real or imagined, of the KJV, I have one serious problem.

One is the English language has changed in the last 400 years or so. What was a correct and valid translation of a word (single unit of language) in the English of 1611 is not always the correct and valid translation of the same word in 2018. (Even 1960.) Biblical Hebrew was a rather 'simple' language. One word (unit of language) could have several meanings depending on context. (Current Spanish is the same and Modern English has a few examples.)

Not only that but the 1611 English language used a number of seemingly current English language words in somewhat different meanings.

On the other hand, the KJV has been used to spread the message of God, and how to obtain a relationship with God through Jesus Christ. I think the KJV is weak on details and easy to misunderstand.

How do I understand KJVO? I do not wish to speak for that faction. In short, my understanding is KJVO is a ridiculous position with no substantial basis.

 

Just the TR, so which version of the TR is acceptable? And if the critical text is corrupted, does that mean that the Nas/Esv et all are also all bad translations then?

 

The Nas does a better job in giving to us the deity of jesus than the Kjv does itself, so why would it be inferior?

 

Are there ANY major doctrines that the Nas/Esv would be denying then if inferior versions?

 

1894 Scrivener a reconstruction of the Greek text underlying the 1611 AV English (except a few places).

The Critical text in most publications is just that "critical" and shows the variants in the apparatus so even the "critical" text shows the Byzantine readings.

NAS/ESV are best scholarly guess. I always choose Byzantine.

 

Perhaps the reasons that KJV-only advocates hold their position are not sound since they often involve the use of fallacies such as begging the question, special pleading, false dilemma, guilt-by-association, etc. and involve the use of unscriptural, unjust measures/standards.

A KJV-only position could be the easy way out to avoid learning the truth and facts concerning all the actual textual differences in the multiple textually-varying sources consulted and used by the Church of England makers of the KJV and to avoid all the effort and work that applying consistent, just measures/standards would require.

A KJV-only position may assume a mere non-scriptural preference or tradition of men and try to suggest that it needs to be accepted to be sound in Bible doctrine.

 

In the preface of the book Cleaning-Up Hazardous Materials by Kirk DiVietro, H. D. Williams wrote: “The false application of ’is given,’ to translations throughout the centuries must stop. Inspiration of translations is a false doctrine concocted by men to justify a position when they were caught proclaiming a doctrine that cannot be substantiated by the Scripture; by the grammar of passages in question, or by history” (p. v). Phil Stringer asserted: “The verse does not say that the words that God gave are preserved, transmitted, or translated by ‘inspiration’” (Brown, Indestructible Book, p. 394). D. A. Waite wrote: “There is no scriptural proof that any translation of God’s Words is inspired of God” (A Warning, p. 32). Charles L. Surrett wrote: “There is no theological reason (no statement from God) to believe that a translation into any language would be inspired in the same way that the original writings in Hebrew and Greek were. No translation has been ‘God-breathed,’ as 2 Timothy 3:16 says of the originals” (Certainty of the Words, p. 75).

D. A. Waite pointed out: "You cannot corrupt and change the Greek and Hebrew text and correct it with the English King James Bible or any other language version" (Foes, p. 6). Waite claimed: "You can't produce in English something that was originally given in Hebrew and Greek" (Fuzzy Facts, p. 33). Waite commented: “The people who say that God has breathed out the King James Bible are in serious error” (Fundamentalist Deception, p. 94). H. D. Williams wrote: “Every person holding the view that the King James Bible is inspired, derivatively inspired, derivatively pure, or derivatively perfect is not only linguistically and historically incorrect, he is theologically incorrect” (Pure Words, p. 21). Williams wrote: “If we attribute purity and inspiration to the translated Words of God in any language, we are in reality claiming double inspiration, double purity, and double Apostolic and prophet-like men who chose them and who wrote them” (p. 63).

 

Are those 2 good translations though, and how many of the Kjv versions used the Scrivener though?

 

Isn't the truth though that there is very high agreement between the Bzt and the Critical texts, with no major doctrines affected either text?