Absolutely correct. The KJV is a very good translation. One of my 6 favorites.
The translators of the KJV surely had no ill intent. Just as the translators of the major modern texts have no ill intent.
Sent from my LGLS990 using Tapatalk
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
A good ensample
- Thread starter stilllearning
- Start date
Absolutely correct. The KJV is a very good translation. One of my 6 favorites.
The translators of the KJV surely had no ill intent. Just as the translators of the major modern texts have no ill intent.
Sent from my LGLS990 using Tapatalk
According to my UBS 4th Edn Greek Testament, manuscripts containing the words include D (5th Century) and E (6th Century). IMHO 500 against 11 is pretty heavy odds.
It wouldn't have been the Holy Roman Emperor, it would have been the Byzantine Emperor. Why is that necessarily a problem? Sinaiticus and Vaticanus were produced at the time of the Arian controversy.
Who judges the 'value'? One of the main things that worries me about modern textual criticism is that evangelicals are leaving it to unbelievers to do it.
I have no problem with that. I will only point out that Erasmus's First Edition which has been so greatly criticized, was responsible for the start of the movement which led to the Reformation in England.
Where did you learn this? It is utterly incorrect. Both the T.R. and the C.T. have ekousan in Acts 22. I have them both in front of me as I write this. Ekousa would mean 'I heard' instead of 'they heard.' That's all.
The Roman emperor moved the capital and himself to Byzantium in 330. He then named in Constantinople. He was still the Roman emperor.
If you argument is that all texts were corrupted during the the time of the the Arian controversy the all text would be corrupt after it. The champion agaisnt the Arian controversy came out of Alexandria as well.
Sent from my LGLS990 using Tapatalk
If you argument is that all texts were corrupted during the the time of the the Arian controversy the all text would be corrupt after it. The champion agaisnt the Arian controversy came out of Alexandria as well.
Sent from my LGLS990 using Tapatalk
Last edited by a moderator:
Indeed they are. Ekousa means 'I heard' (Acts 26:14); ekousan means 'they heard' (22:9). Neither of them have, as their primary meaning, 'understand.'
I don't have an issue with those version that translate 'understand,' but it is not the primary meaning of akouo. I think the KJV and NKJV are at least equally good.
No, they are entirely accurate. The modern translators have sacrificed strict accuracy in order to help the sense.
I don't want to set myself up as a great authority on NT Greek, but I am right on this point. If someone who is a real authority wants to post here, I'll be most grateful.
Last edited by a moderator:
They have left their translation open to accusations of contradictions. One part says the could hear, the next verse says they can't hear. That isn't better
* and sorry for the 3 incomplete posts earlier. The phone on keyboard kept locking up. I had to reboot.
The meaning(S191) = to hear, listen to,to obey, to understand, to take in or admit to mental acceptance. Mounces expository dictionary.
*Strong's gives a similar definition, =
to hear, be noised, be reported, understand.
Strong's also describes S191 as "in the sense to understand and comprehend "
Sent from my LGLS990 using Tapatalk
Last edited by a moderator:
The makers of the KJV made hundreds and thousands of changes to the pre-1611 English Bibles.
We do not use the 1769 edition of the KJV. No presently printed edition of the KJV is identical to the 1769 Oxford edition of the KJV. The 1769 Oxford edition is said to have had over 100 errors. I have examined an actual 1769 Oxford edition of the KJV and an actual 1769 Cambridge edition of the KJV, and I have found as many as 400 differences between them and the thirty or more varying present KJV editions. The 1769 edition of the KJV still included the Apocrypha.
Present KJV editions are a post-1900 edition, not the 1769 edition.
But though there are differences, the more modern editions are still based on Blayney's revision --right?
Most present KJV editions are based on Blayney's 1769, but not all.
There were several present KJV editions printed after 2000 that were based on the 1873 Cambridge edition of the KJV edited by Scrivener. These were printed several years by Zondevan and some years by Hendrickson. These editions do not follow all the changes introduced by Blayney and returned to 1611 renderings in many places.
There are also the 2005 and 2011 Cambridge KJV editions edited by David Norton that were not based on Blayney's 1769.
With all those variations...what's a KJVO to do? Which KJV edition is beyond dispute the single, exclusive, one-and-only Word of God translation for English-speaking people?
Yes and glad mine is not based on the Blayney addition because according to this verse found in the Sermon on the Mount his verse completely changes the meaning.
Matthew 5:13 Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be salted? it is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men.
In the Blayney edition it is read if the salt has lost its savour... This is not talking about the salt but the individuals that Jesus is talking to... Now you may say to yourself that is just one word but in the word of God just one word changes the whole meaning of the context... Ye are the salt of the earth... Look at all that comes before that commendation of the Lord... Blessed!... All the blessings that come before to those that are gathered to hear the first time were directed to those that came to hear are also directed to us in the here and now... Ye are the salt of the earth!... Because we are we bring the blessings bestowed upon us to others... Ye are also the light of the world... I am also KJV but I read my KJV and study my KJV for a different reason I never seen stated on here... My name on here is the same as his name Tyndale... William Tyndale was a translator of the New and Old Testament and it is reported that the translators of the KJV used 76% of the OT and 83% of the NT of Tydales translation in compiling the KJV... William Tyndale was executed in 1536... Before he died by strangulation and his dead body be burned... This martyr cried to his God, "LORD! OPEN THE KING OF ENGLAND'S EYES"... 75 years later God answered that prayer... 54 Scholars pain staking compiled it... The first complete Bible for the English speaking World... The King James Bible 1611... Brother Glen
Last edited by a moderator:
L-1560 is the expert when it comes to old Bible translations. However, to the best of my knowledge, Wycliffe's friend, John Purvey, translated all of the Old Testament into English in the 1390s.
William Tyndale translated the Pentateuch, Joshua --2 Chronicles and Jonah.
William Tyndale translated the Pentateuch, Joshua --2 Chronicles and Jonah.
Thus there were eight English translations of the complete Bible (including the Douay-Rheims Bible) before the KJV.
Yet Matthew Henry, who lived long before Blayney, uses "its" in his commentary. And Gill makes no mention of Bro. Glen's interpretation, apparently assuming that "his" and "its" have no difference in meaning.
I am afraid, Bro. Glen, that this is an ensample of those who prefer one particular version to seize upon a particular wording and build an interpretation upon it, when in the great scheme of things it really makes no difference. Many of the early translations have "his," but I don't think you can read into that too much, especially considering that the Geneva translators don't even think to mention the significance.
Yet Matthew Henry, who lived long before Blayney, uses "its" in his commentary. And Gill makes no mention of Bro. Glen's interpretation, apparently assuming that "his" and "its" have no difference in meaning.
I am afraid, Bro. Glen, that this is an ensample of those who prefer one particular version to seize upon a particular wording and build an interpretation upon it, when in the great scheme of things it really makes no difference. Many of the early translations have "his," but I don't think you can read into that too much, especially considering that the Geneva translators don't even think to mention the significance.
I'll be quoting from Alister McGrath's book In The Beginning
"Middle English did not know the word 'its,' meaning 'belonging to it.' In its place, Middle English used the word 'his.' This word could mean one of two things: 'belonging to him,' and 'belonging to it.' By 1600, however, the word 'his' was increasingly being used solely as the masculine possessive pronoun. Yet the same word was still used, even if increasingly rarely, to act as the neuter possessive pronoun. Even though 'its' was unquestionably gaining the upper hand, it had yet to achieve dominance. This is reflected in the King James Bible, which uses the term 'its' only once, at Leviticus 25:5." (p.274)
"Middle English did not know the word 'its,' meaning 'belonging to it.' In its place, Middle English used the word 'his.' This word could mean one of two things: 'belonging to him,' and 'belonging to it.' By 1600, however, the word 'his' was increasingly being used solely as the masculine possessive pronoun. Yet the same word was still used, even if increasingly rarely, to act as the neuter possessive pronoun. Even though 'its' was unquestionably gaining the upper hand, it had yet to achieve dominance. This is reflected in the King James Bible, which uses the term 'its' only once, at Leviticus 25:5." (p.274)