How is the KJV a Bible translation in any different sense than the NKJV is?

[Pastor_Bob]

Would a clear definition and understanding of what constitutes a Bible translation be a problem for KJV-only reasoning?

Why would that be a problem? The very name, King James Version, clearly expresses the recognition that it is a "version" of the Word of God. We simply believe that it is a perfectly preserved version in the English language.

 

[atpollard]

We simply believe that it is a perfectly preserved version in the English language.

Please don't take this as any sort of attack, I was just curious ...

What exactly do you mean by "perfectly preserved"?

I know that the existing Greek manuscripts have differences that scholars debate which is closer to the original text.
Do you believe that the KJV accurately translates the original autographs written by the Apostles and disciples and contains no translation errors carried over from the Greek manuscripts?

 

[TCassidy]

Do you believe that the KJV accurately translates the original autographs written by the Apostles and disciples and contains no translation errors carried over from the Greek manuscripts?

I think the greater question is not "translation errors" (as translating from one language to another is largely a matter of opinion, especially when dealing with a language no longer in common usage) but rather transmission issues. What set of rules are used to try to determine the most likely original reading and are those rules unbiased toward any specific manuscript or textform?

I believe the unbiased examination of the manuscript evidence will show that the Byzantine textform is more likely to represent the original reading due to the much more rational rules regarding transmissional probability.

 

[Yeshua1]

Don't you believe John 16:13 "But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth ..."? Isn't truth found in scripture? Doesn't the Holy Spirit still guide believers?

[Just to state for the record, I am not a KJV-only or even a fan of the KJV. I read the NASB and NIV. I am just trying to play along with the spirit of the OP rather than argue about 'Election vs Choice' on other topics.]

Yes, He illuminates to us the truths of the bible, regardless if one reads, Kjv/Nkjv/Nas/Esv/Niv et all!

 

[Yeshua1]

I think the greater question is not "translation errors" (as translating from one language to another is largely a matter of opinion, especially when dealing with a language no longer in common usage) but rather transmission issues. What set of rules are used to try to determine the most likely original reading and are those rules unbiased toward any specific manuscript or textform?

I believe the unbiased examination of the manuscript evidence will show that the Byzantine textform is more likely to represent the original reading due to the much more rational rules regarding transmissional probability.

You could support that it represents more of the originals, but still not 100% of them, but the Critical text and majority texts also can make same claim!

 

[Yeshua1]

Please don't take this as any sort of attack, I was just curious ...

What exactly do you mean by "perfectly preserved"?

I know that the existing Greek manuscripts have differences that scholars debate which is closer to the original text.
Do you believe that the KJV accurately translates the original autographs written by the Apostles and disciples and contains no translation errors carried over from the Greek manuscripts?

There is NO 100 % to the originals translation ever been made, but the truth is that for the scriptures to be the infallible word of god to us, that is not needed...
The Kjv translators worked off Greek texts that were good, but none should even claim that any greek text used in translation is an exact copy of the original texts themselves!

 

[tyndale1946]

I think the greater question is not "translation errors" (as translating from one language to another is largely a matter of opinion, especially when dealing with a language no longer in common usage) but rather transmission issues. What set of rules are used to try to determine the most likely original reading and are those rules unbiased toward any specific manuscript or textform?

I believe the unbiased examination of the manuscript evidence will show that the Byzantine textform is more likely to represent the original reading due to the much more rational rules regarding transmissional probability.

That may be true TC but the Lord knows we don't read the Byzantine original like some do, that is why it was translated into the language for the common man English... Is the word of God preserved in every language it was intended?... God said he would!... Since my native tongue is English I see no reason to use any other version than the KJV... Brother Glen

Psalms 12:6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.

12:7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

 

[Yeshua1]

That may be true TC but the Lord knows we don't read the Byzantine original like some do, that is why it was translated into the language for the common man English... Is the word of God preserved in every language it was intended?... God said he would!... Since my native tongue is English I see no reason to use any other version than the KJV... Brother Glen

Psalms 12:6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.

12:7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

he also though was just as involved with the esv/Niv/Csb/Nasb as he was in the KJV!

 

[Pastor_Bob]

Please don't take this as any sort of attack, I was just curious ...

Thank you for your gracious demeanor.

What exactly do you mean by "perfectly preserved"?

What it means to me, personally, is, the Holy Spirit moved human authors to write the original autographs (II Peter 1:21). God moved human scribes to copy the originals (Romans 3:1,2) and I believe He also guided men to make copies of the copies (apographs) so that each generation would have reliable, accurate copies of God's Word (Psalm 78:5-7). I believe that the KJV is a providentially preserved translation of those perfectly preserved copies.

 

[Yeshua1]

Thank you for your gracious demeanor.


What it means to me, personally, is, the Holy Spirit moved human authors to write the original autographs (II Peter 1:21). God moved human scribes to copy the originals (Romans 3:1,2) and I believe He also guided men to make copies of the copies (apographs) so that each generation would have reliable, accurate copies of God's Word (Psalm 78:5-7). I believe that the KJV is a providentially preserved translation of those perfectly preserved copies.

Which still had errors and mistakes from the copiers contained within it, and which TR text is the right one, which Kjv?

 

[Pastor_Bob]

Which still had errors and mistakes from the copiers contained within it

Some did and were set aside (aleph and B, to name a couple, IMHO, of course). The overwhelming majority have agreement.

and which TR text is the right one, which Kjv?

Which Greek text and/or English version do you believe qualifies as preserved? Or, do you not believe in the preservation of Scripture?

 

[TCassidy]

He also guided men to make copies of the copies (apographs)

Technically, Bob, an "apograph" is the first copy made from the original autograph. The copies of copies are just copies.

I believe that the KJV is a providentially preserved translation of those perfectly preserved copies.

I have no problem believing in "perfect preservation" as long as you are using the word "perfect" to mean "complete, mature, nothing lacking necessary to the whole." But I do have a problem if you mean "absolute letter perfect" because we know of no manuscript or text that is letter perfect. All contain transmissional errors and different types of typographical errors (and, yes, I am aware of the incongruity of using the word "typographical" when referring to a "manuscript). And even if there was one perfect manuscript (such as Pickering claims for Family 35) how would we know, as we have no autograph to compare it to?

 

[Yeshua1]

Some did and were set aside (aleph and B, to name a couple, IMHO, of course). The overwhelming majority have agreement.


Which Greek text and/or English version do you believe qualifies as preserved? Or, do you not believe in the preservation of Scripture?

I believe that God preserved to us enough of the original books in the TR/Bzt/Majority/Critical text to have an English translation made of any of them would qualify as being the English word of the lord to us today!

 

[TCassidy]

The overwhelming majority have agreement.

But not letter perfect agreement. Even among the Majority/Byzantine textform there are variants.

Which Greek text and/or English version do you believe qualifies as preserved?

I believe all Greek textforms and all conservative English translations are preserved simply because we have them available to us today. I prefer the Byzantine textform and English bibles translated from that text form (KJV, NKJV, WEB, EMTV, etc.) based on my understanding of transmissional probability.

Or, do you not believe in the preservation of Scripture?

I have to believe in preservation of Scripture for we still have the scriptures, and when compared to the most ancient manuscripts and quotes by Patristics we can discern a consistancy.

 

[Yeshua1]

Technically, Bob, an "apograph" is the first copy made from the original autograph. The copies of copies are just copies.

I have no problem believing in "perfect preservation" as long as you are using the word "perfect" to mean "complete, mature, nothing lacking necessary to the whole." But I do have a problem if you mean "absolute letter perfect" because we know of no manuscript or text that is letter perfect. All contain transmissional errors and different types of typographical errors (and, yes, I am aware of the incongruity of using the word "typographical" when referring to a "manuscript). And even if there was one perfect manuscript (such as Pickering claims for Family 35) how would we know, as we have no autograph to compare it to?

The TR/Majority/Bzt/Critical greek texts are all perfect in how you define the term to enable us to have English word of the lord translated to us for today.

 

[Yeshua1]

The Greek orthodox Study bible only translation based upon Bzt, correct?

 

[Rippon]

This "perfectly preserved" business has got to go.

Pastor Bob, I know you probably don't believe in Confessions of Faith as such, but I think in your mind your stance on this issue is one of your key non-biblical platforms.

You have "faith" that the KJV is preserved perfectly so that it is singular in all translations ever made --though you don't know any of the languages it has been translated into. Hence, that position of yours is a false faith.

 

[Rippon]

when compared to the most ancient manuscripts

Which are Alexandrian and not Byzantine.

and quotes by Patristics we can discern a consistancy.

Are you sure about that?

 

[TCassidy]

Are you sure about that?

Yes. The quotes from the Patristics are consistent with the early Manuscripts. Everyone with greater than a 4th grade education knows that.

 

[Rippon]

Yes. The quotes from the Patristics are consistent with the early Manuscripts. Everyone with greater than a 4th grade education knows that.

Mr. Condescension, please furnish proof --not merely assertion and arrogance.