Featured What are the main deciding factors for your main English Bible of choice?

You can continue to use the KJV (what version do you use by the way?). I believe my NASB 95 is the Word of God. Improved upon the KJV. More and more of God's Word revealed in the Dead Sea Scrolls. I'm not asking you to believe it. If you want to deny that the Word of God I use is not His Word. That is on you. I've done my research. Older manuscripts do not contain verse 21. The KJV translators did not have the amount of manuscript evidence we have now. I believe verse 21 was added to the manuscript s the KJV translators used. (Even the KJV translators believed their translation could be improved upon, of course I've seen many KJVO persons ignore what the translators of the KJV wrote in the preface). I have an 'approved upon' version called NASB95.

 

His opinion of the quality. Anyway, it is in my Bible (NASB95) with a footnote. Just as there were many footnotes in the original KJV.

 

Must have been after the older manuscripts, since verse 21 is not in there.


You welcome.

 

I'm persuaded 17:21 is not original. But Mark 9:28-29 is. So it's there, just not in Matt 17:21.

 

I agree with the translators of the KJV when they wrote, 'We do not deny, nay, we affirm and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English set forth by men of our profession ....... containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God.'

My translation of choice is the NKJV, for the following reasons:
1. I believe the Majority Text is likely to be closer to the original that the Critical Text. The Textus Receptus is much closer to the Majority Text than other modern versions.
2. I want a modern language translation. I respect the KJV, but the language is often difficult. For example, what does 'leasing' mean in Psalms 5:6? It's not in any dictionary and you have to compare with a modern language translation to find out.
3. I prefer Formal Equivalence Translations to Dynamic Equivalence.
4. I find that the NKJV preserves much of the style and beauty of the KJV.
5. I read a lot of older Christian writers and they use the KJV; having the NKJV at my side is helpful.
6. I find I can use Young's Technical Concordance with the NKJV.
7. It is helpful to know where the T.R. differs from the M.T. and the C.T. The NKJV tells me.

 

17:21 Soðlice þis kyn ne beoð ut-adrifen buten þurh gebed & fæsten

The verse is also in the Anglo Saxon.

 

For me, the deciding factors are:

1.) Being accurate & error-free as possible. as possible.

2.) Being in understandable, everyday language as possible while maintaining accuracy.

 

Regarding Matthew 17:21, the NET note quotes Dr. Metzger.

"Since there is no satisfactory reason why the passage, if originally present in Matthew, should have been omitted in a wide variety of witnesses, and since copyists frequently inserted material derived from another Gospel, it appears that most manuscripts have been assimilated to the parallel in Mark 9:29."

D.A. Carson, R.T. France, William Henrickson have the same position.

It is not present in Codex Vaticanus and Sinaiticus of the 4th century.

 

Which is the only reason it is missing from modern Critical Texts and Bibles. The 2 4th century Unical manuscripts are vastly overrated. They both are missing words and groups of words because of eye skip. The known mistakes of these 2 manuscripts are great. That they are still overvalued in this century is a crime. They are valuable manuscripts. But it is time to not reproduce their many errors.

 

Cite your source. Even Pickering didn't state that.

Regarding the 'manuscripts' you mentioned --what percentage are dated after the 9th century?

 

I personally am a TR man, so I use KJV and NKJV, I do have an nasb as well as several ESVs. In my counseling ministry if the counselee is more comfortable with ESV then we will use that and I am fine with it.