the Oxford KJV "errors"?

We are discussing supposed errors in the KJV Oxford. Please limit your discussions to that and that alone, and not a group of posters. Further off topic comments will be deleted.

 

The KJV was a pretty good translation for its time and with the limited Greek & Hebraic sources available to the translators. I opine that had they had the resources available to them that we have available to us the KJV would look QUITE different.

Kiwimac

 

Please forgive this very uneducated comment, but in reading these verses within the context of the verse. I fail to understand how the way they have been rendered would be considered an error. If it is the fact that sentece structure in the English language makes them an error then there are a few more places where that is the case. Other than that, without doing indepth research into the manuscripts that it was translated from, how does this make a significant difference in the understanding of scripture?

I am not a KJVOist but at the same time, I don't believe that the KJV should be pounded on just because of (what seems to be on the surface) minor sentence structure. It is not enough to change meanings in my mind. Just as the newer translations change some of the word useage and structure and it does not provide any change to the meaning of the scripture.

 

What textforms do we have available that were not available to the KJV translators? </font>[/QUOTE]There you go again Doc C. Asking those hard questions. Are you going to let facts get in the way again?

 

What textforms do we have available that were not available to the KJV translators? </font>[/QUOTE]Great question - surely there is a simple answer.

 

The KJV translation used the Stephanus Greek text of 1550, a largely Byzantine document.
The centuries earlier Vulgate translation was influenced by Alexandrian and Western text documents.

In the early 1600's the science of textual criticism was still in its long infancy;
these various textform types were not classified and weighted until much later.

The spirit of his post was to say that we have increased our scholarship since the 15th century and this influences our abilities to translate texts.

These were the best scholars of their time.
Given the thousand-fold increase in available documents and the truly awesome job the translators of the KJV did with the limited texts available at their time, who could disagree?

And IMO, the truly big discoveries have been in the Hebrew text.

Rob

 

Not sure that there were any big discoveries in the Hebrew text. Most all of the Hebrew texts read the same. The DSS had some interesting proto Masoretic stuff, but it didn't change our translation any IMO.

 

I just wanted to say thanks to Dr C for being a centerline between a widely swinging textual pendulum. I will work on getting you that show on TBN now.

 

Did it ever occur to anyone that an error can not be identified unless the correct translation is known?

I haven't posted here in a long time. One reason is the disbelief I see here.

God promised to preserve his word. I will not show all the verses, they have been seen many times. God has either kept his word or not. God is either telling the truth or lying.

I believe God told the truth and that there is a correct version of his word in the world. I believe it is the KJV. You obviously disagree.

Fine. Then which version is the correct version?

 

This thread is supposed to be a discussion of the Oxford edition and supposed errors contained therein. It is not a disussion of the KJV vs all others.

Let us return to topic.

 

Misprints in need of editing are quite the less "errors" as those misleading interpretations that make up the majority of newer versions.

That is what Waite is pointing out, "errors in printing" not erros in the Bible.

Then the whole mess is begun again by those who slide and wobble on anything "new" to chew on.

The older understanding is best. Modernism demands the reasonig capabilities be brought down to within modern reason of men, that is exactly why the Alexandrian MSS are so widely accepted, these days, these last days, when evil men a seducers shall wax worse and worse.

I know to stay with what is proven reliable and never contradictory except to those who insist on being a contradiction themsleves.

These "BIG errors"? Laugh!

 

I have a Cambridge (I don't know what edition) that has a misprint in Matthew 23:24 which says, "Strain at" instead of "strain out". Is that misprinted in other editions?

 

[/b]He did. God preserved His word. I know. I have it.

God always tells the truth. Unlike a lot of people.

So do I.

You are obviously wrong. I believe the KJV is the word of God in English. I am just not dumb, or arrogant, enough to tell God that the KJV is the ONLY version in English He is allowed to bless.

I know of several in English. KJV. NKJV. LITV. TMB. KJ2000. KJII. Etc. [/QB][/QUOTE]
*******
NKJV is not correct.
TMB is not correct.
KJ2000 is not correct.
KJII is not correct.
All other modern versions are not correct.
All of them have errors.

Only one stands alone as the final authority as opposed to the preferences of fallible men playing the game of pick and choose.

The Holy Bible:now known as the AV or the King James Bible.

PeterAV
Holy Bible
There is only one.