Featured What is your understanding of KJVO?

To have KJVO be true, the translators would have to have had direct inspiration by the Holy Spirit in their translation process!

 

IF the KJV translators had access to the textual sources the modern versions had, and choose to use them at times instead of the TR, would they have been wrong?

 

That would be a possibility.

 

They did not even have access to them, so why assume that they would have not used them at all?

 

You should ask yourself.

 

Which modern versions?

From my own research, most use a Greek Text that is built on the CT*, not the MT, and definitely not the TR.
Very few use a Greek Text that is built on the TR, and even fewer use a text based on the MT.
*Side note: To me, that's why it's called the "Critical Text"...because it criticizes what came before it; the TR.



If the "KJV" translators would have had access to the over 5,000 extant Greek manuscripts, papyrii, uncials and other bits in their day ( and that doesn't even address the Hebrew textual differences ), would they have made the same mistake that most of the newer English translation committees are ( and have been ) making, in using an apparatus that is composed of what amounts to a reliance on only 3 manuscripts and some other bits?

NAS28 / UBS5, the newest, most modern collation of the Greek Texts, is still built on the CT... for all intents and purposes and as far as I can determine.
Novum Testamentum Graece's first edition ( 1898 ) was built on Tischendorff, Westcott and Hort, and Weymouth; and from a published "apparatus" point of view, that is where the English translations began to diverge from the TR, in my opinion.
However, many would say that the divergence was with the English Revised Version in 1881, and I have to agree with them, for the most part.
As a translation, the ERV of 1881 was the first to use the "new Greek" of its day...which was built on the CT, not the TR and not the MT.


Now...
Here's a question for you:

Do you think that any of today's translators and scholars, who vary widely all over the map in both doctrinal teachings and beliefs, are actually doing God's work?
If so, which ones?
If it's impossible to determine who is saved ( as some here say ), then how do we determine which group or groups of translators to trust the work on?
Are we to take anything that comes along, even if it seems right?


I'll put it bluntly...
If God tells us as believers that it is not wise to put our trust in men ( Psalms 40:4, Psalms 118:8, Jeremiah 17:5-8 ), then who do you trust to put His words into your hands other than Him?

I say,
"Find out which translations God has honored over the years ( and is honoring ), and stick to those."

Otherwise, you'll have to cross the line and decide that it is possible to know for sure who is saved and who isn't, and then go with the translators that you think are saved.


To answer your question directly:

If the AV translators would have had access to all of the manuscripts that we now have today, I think they would have handled it no differently;
They would have used a comprehensive collation of all of the available manuscripts, including other translations and writings that came before, and they wouldn't have based their translations on an apparatus that is built on only 3 major manuscripts that, even if older, disagree with each other widely, from what all my digging has uncovered so far.


May God bless you greatly this coming year, sir.

 

I honestly think that they would have used all of the available sources, and while keeping the gist of their Kjv, would have amended and corrected it in areas with the CT or the MT would be preferred!

 

Y1,
It's way more complicated than I think you are currently seeing ( and even what I was seeing until recently ):

Most modern translations rely on readings found in the Alexandrian text types...which represent about 5% of what is available.
The AV and some others rely on readings found in the Byzantine text types, which represent about 80%, but are based on what they had available...which was 6-7 manuscripts.
Hardly anyone is using anything from both.

To me, the only way to put together a thorough translation today, is to collate everything available, and then go from there.

When the Bible was put together in Jerome's day, he had very little to work with.
When it was put together during the "Reformation", there was still not much to rely on, but far more than the Catholic Church had access to, IMO.
Today, what they are relying on doesn't make sense...at least to me.

Most of today's translators, instead of using a Greek apparatus based on all 5,000 existing manuscripts, papyrii, uncials and miniscules, is only relying on something that is basically concentrated on roughly 120.

Simply put, no one is trying to base their translations on what actually exists...they are basing them on something that was derived at least 100 years ago from smaller representations of what we now have.



Do you see the problem?
The CT represents less than 5% of what is available and agrees far less to the majority than both the TR and MT do.

And here's the kicker, as I see it:

The CT is Alexandrian-based, which are in the minority.
The TR and MT are both Byzantine-based, which are in the vast majority.


So, why are most of today's English translations of the Bible based on a Greek Text that is mainly Alexandrian, and in the minority?

 

I'll telly you why, in my opinion:

No one wants to go through all the work of collating over 5,000 manuscripts, when "cut and paste" is far more efficient.
Why bother collating everything in sight when most of today's biblical scholars are convinced that "older is better", and prefer the CT, and by extension, the Alexandrian text types?

Why bother coming up with a single, accurate translation in English, when the market ( in any language) is doing so well selling Bibles that are produced from a group of competing publishers...who are making money hand over fist?

29 Good Bible Sales Statistics - BrandonGaille.com

Using what the scholars come up with is far easier...and who cares about accuracy and faithfulness, as long as it's "close enough", right?
By the way, that doesn't wash with me.

In the days of the AV translators, they used almost everything they had, except for what was locked up in the Vatican library.
Today, there's far more available, yet translators aren't making use of it.
They are using an apparatus that is always-changing, and never complete...to translate Bibles that are always changing and never complete.


To me it's one thing to take and translate the Bible into a language and distribute it to everyone who wants one in any given country or language...its quite another to keep re-translating the Bible based on a very small representation of all the existing manuscripts, and then putting them up for sale.




Strange.

 

That would not be the correct reason why it is called the Critical Text.

The twenty to thirty textually-varying Textus Receptus editions were made by text editors using some form of textual criticism so that their text could be also described as being a critical text. The TR editors likely compared less than 100 Greek NT manuscripts in creating their text.

 

Perhaps, but that doesn't change the fact that the TR is Byzantine-based, and the vast majority of the existing manuscripts are Byzantine in origin.
They used what they had.

The CT uses the Alexandrian and not much else, yet the Alexandrian represents far less of what is now available.

Why not use all of it?

 

But was what they had the best available sources to use in translation?

 

Y1,
What they had was what was available.
Otherwise, they would have had more.

 

IF they would have translated later on, how do we know that they would have not rejected the TR for the CT though?

 

Let me see if I'm understanding you correctly.

If the AV translators would have had everything that currently exists with regard to manuscripts today, would they have deliberately chosen to ignore a collated Greek text that agrees with the vast majority of it, and have gone with something that represents less than 5% of the total and disagrees with the vast majority of it?


I suppose that we don't.
I also do not know for sure if the Lord directly used the AV translators, or if he only permitted them to do the work, and then used it for His glory.
But, to me this is all speculation.

With that said, I have another question for you...
In their place, would you have?

 

There is a family of manuscripts called family 35 (f35). Its readings occur across all the families of texts. And largely is a majority text. The TR more often than not agrees with the f35. The CT rarely agrees with f35.

 

> would they have deliberately chosen to ignore a collated Greek text that agrees with the vast majority of it, and have gone with something that represents less than 5% of the total and disagrees with the vast majority of it?

Apparently they did, even on the basis of the manuscript knowledge that was available in their own day, since the KJV often follows minority readings that the translators were aware of (e.g. their note on Lk 17:36 where they admit the verse is "wanting" in the vast majority of manuscripts, as well as other well-known minority readings such as 1Jn 5:7 and Ac 8:37).

 

You'll have to decide whether or not those minority readings are the word of the living God, or not.
I'm satisfied that they are.

As is usual per these types of discussions, some people look at the AV and wants something closer to modern English...which I don't blame them, really.
But then they settle for a translation in English that leaves out that which was present for over 300 years ( 1536 to 1881 ) in earlier English translations, and was regarded by all as the word of God, until the textual critics came along and stirred things up:

John 5:4
Mark 16:9-20
Acts of the Apostles 8:37
1 John 5:7

..and many more.

 

Here's where I draw lines in my own, personal treatment of it:

If someone uses an English translation of the Bible that is modern, I'm not going to reject them as my brother or sister.
However, if someone who uses those same modern translations tells me that the above verses are not God's actual words, then we will have to disagree; and depending on how hard a person holds to that, we may not be able to continue that fellowship.
I'm sorry if that offends many of you, but there it is.

If you don't like the fact that I believe that those verses are God's actual words, then we are in disagreement with what God's actual words are, and per Amos 3:3, it would be very difficult for us to walk together.
There are already enough issues and doctrines that those who profess Christ divide over, but to question the foundation of His words, and whether or not they actually are His words, tells me that Satan has done a marvelous job over the past 150 years or so with Textual Criticism.

To me, "textual criticism" is nothing more than a tool of the devil used to bring yet more division to the body of Christ;
...and it seems to work well.
Those of us who believe that we have God's very words in our hands when we hold the Authorized, or anything close to it, have stood on this principle since it all started in the 1800's and before that...we are not going to abandon it just because we become outnumbered by those who don't see anything wrong with the disparity.
We see an assault on God's word that has begun at the academic level..."scribes", who aren't interested in trembling at His words, but are instead interested in casting doubt on them.

I don't trust the unbelieving world of men, which includes apostates and scholars who profess Christ but have never experienced His calling or genuine need of a Saviour from their sins, to treat God's word with respect...I trust God's children to do so;
For truly, they are the only ones who "hear" His voice, and follow Him ( John 8:47, John 10:27 ).


To me, it's like Satan said in the Garden...
" Yea, hath God said...?"
One side says, "no", the other says, "Yes, He did."
With the TR and the AV, He did...with the CT and most modern translations, He didn't.

With all that said, my understanding of KJVO is this...

God's word is found in the Textus Receptus and the Byzantine text types, of which the Majority Text is comprised.
Any translation of God's word that is faithfully performed from this text type ( which makes up the majority of witnesses present today ), are His words in whatever language they happen to be translated in.
For now, I trust the AV and its direct, modern conversions...I do not trust anything built on the NA / UBS apparatus from its inception, nor Westcott and Hort's work, nor any of their contemporaries' work which deviates from the TR.



And with that, I take my leave of this thread.




May God bless all of you in the knowledge of Him and His grace.

 

You do not demonstrate that your assertion is factually true.

Some actual facts from the pre-1611 English Bibles would conflict with your statement. There were a number of actual textual differences (some even involving whole verses) between the pre-1611 English Bibles and the 1611 KJV. The KJV added some whole verses plus some clauses, some phrases, and some words not found in some of the pre-1611 English Bibles, and the KJV omitted some whole verses plus some clauses, some phrases, and some words found in one or more of the pre-1611 English Bibles.

There were over 140 words not found in the 1611 edition of the KJV that were added in some later KJV editions.