Is it just my imagination, or are many folks here hostile to people who read the KJV?

[Samuel Owen]

I used to believe that any translation was as good as an other and that it was all a matter of preference. However, after doing a little research I discovered:

1. There are two "families" of manuscripts.
2. There are differences between these two families of manuscripts.

I think asking if one set of manuscripts is better or more accurate than the other is a fair question. You may reach a different conclusion that me, but shouldn't we be asking the questions and looking at the issues involved?

OOOH Thermodynamics, you should not have said that!. :tonofbricks:

 

[robycop3]

Dear Thermodynamics:

The large majority of us are against the KJVO DOCTRINE, which isn't even HINTED AT in the KJV itself. It's wholly man-made, & taken from a CULT OFFICIAL'S book, that book being Our Authorized Bible Vindicated(1930) by Dr. Benjamin Wilkinson, a 7TH DAY ADVENTIST official.

Personally, I am Sola Scripture; if a doctrine of worship is not found in Scripture, at least by unmistakable implication, it's incorrect.

Our "attacks" upon the KJV are to disprove the claims of those who say it's perfect.

And when the KJVO camp spouts vitriol & hostility, they should expect the same in return. An eye for an eye.

Yours,

robycop3

 

[Thermodynamics]

Most of us here have done just that and come to our conclusions. Both sets of manuscripts are valid - and the differences between them are indeed very small. Not one doctrine of Christianity is removed, changed or altered in any way between them. Praise God!

I respectfully think you are right AND wrong.

It is true that the Majority Text and Critical Text are about 98% the same. It is true that all major doctrines are there in both. Most important, God's plan of salvation can be found in both.

However, it is also true that the Critical Text is shorter by several thousand words than the Majority Text. There are a number of whole verses that appear in the MT that do not appear in the CT.

Thus either words have been removed from the CT or words have been added to the MT. I would prefer not to have a Bible that has words removed or words added.

 

[Jim1999]

And some words were never meant to be there.

Also remember, the selection of books was done by a number of men. Some entire books were excluded. We ar not talking about original manuscripts. They were long missing.

Now where do we go for accuracy and truth?

Cheers,

Jim

 

[HankD]

I used to believe that any translation was as good as an other and that it was all a matter of preference. However, after doing a little research I discovered:

1. There are two "families" of manuscripts.
2. There are differences between these two families of manuscripts.

I think asking if one set of manuscripts is better or more accurate than the other is a fair question. You may reach a different conclusion that me, but shouldn't we be asking the questions and looking at the issues involved?

Yes but its not even the primary issue (IMO).

First let me say that I am way over on the KJV-TR "line in the sand".

That's a shame that there is that line in the sand, but it was the KJVO who drew it in the first place.

Yes, there are basically two (actually more) families of manuscripts from which most Bibles derive their translation.

They are roughly categorized into (for the sake of the discussion) what are called Alexandrian and Byzantine families.

Alexandrian are the oldest extant while the Byzantine are younger but the overwhemingly numerous and internally in the greatest agreement.

Internal agreement obviously because there are so many more of them.

However, since 1611 even older papyri manuscripts than the Alexandrian have been discovered.

Many of these papyri such a p66 which some date back to AD120 are almost divided 50-50 between Alexandrian and Byzantine variants.
Showing that the division between the two families was very early on.

Therefore, it is still impossible to "scientifically" know which family more represents the original Scriptures as written by the inspired human author.

There is no book (NT) on earth whose history goes back 2000 years which has been copied so many thousands of times, translated 100's of time and quoted by church fathers and historians thousands of times since the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

The science of textual restoration can bring us up a 98% plus certainty of the originals (the Koine Greek).

But it doesn't matter because science is not the ultimate answer, faith is and that is the primary issue (IMO).

Translations of either family of manuscripts can provide for faith in the atoning death, burial and resurrection of the God-man Jesus Christ.

God could have preserved the Koine Scriptures perfectly in one collection of manuscripts, we all agree upon that possibility.

But He didn't. And He had a reason.

I have the feeling that the arguments and verbal battles concerning its meaning would still continue on even if He had done so.

When it comes to teaching, my theory is that (generally speaking) the TR types are more accurate in the wording (in the few places of disagreement) but the MVs are more accurate in what the "koine" (common) or modern expression of what God was saying 2000 years ago to the then "modern man".

The MVs are God's way of returning us to that original intent of presenting the Gospel in a coherent way to the "man on the street".

We no longer speak 17th century Elizabethan-Jacobian-Shakesperean English. The common unchurched man on the street has difficulty with this form of English communication.

It's certainly OK for those of us who were born closer to the 17th century and nurtured in a church where it was explained/exegeted for us for decades.

This is not a slam on the KJV but a statement of fact.

That is my opinion FWIW.

HankD

 

[Thermodynamics]

Hank, that is an interesting way of looking at the issue that I had not considered before. I may not agree with everything you say, but the point of a conversation like this is that we are exposed to ideas that are new and different.

Thank you!

 

[HankD]

Thus either words have been removed from the CT or words have been added to the MT. I would prefer not to have a Bible that has words removed or words added.

That is the desire of everyone here Thermo. Everyone.

HankD

 

[Thermodynamics]

That is the desire of everyone here Thermo. Everyone.

HankD

I would hope so!

 

[Jim1999]

On the language issue, most kids study Shakespeare in school, college and university and study the language of that time. This lends some understanding of the KJV language..I did say,,some....

I suggest with the slanguage of to-day, especially in the USA and Canada, young people would have enough trouble with any English version, modern or otherwise.

Cheers,

Jim

 

[Samuel Owen]

The KJV is neither 17th century english, or Shakespearean. It is Tyndale, when William Tyndale started to translate the Greek and Hebrew, he found the English language in its form of the time; to be inadequate.

So he developed what is now called Shakespearean english, to get a closer match. So without Tyndale there would have been no KJV, or W. Shakespeare. If you go on-line and look up the Tyndale Bible, you will find it almost a dead ringer for the KJV. Language and words, that was the 16th century before W. Shakespeare was even thought about.

 

[HankD]

The KJV is neither 17th century english, or Shakespearean. It is Tyndale, when William Tyndale started to translate the Greek and Hebrew, he found the English language in its form of the time; to be inadequate.

So he developed what is now called Shakespearean english, to get a closer match. So without Tyndale there would have been no KJV, or W. Shakespeare. If you go on-line and look up the Tyndale Bible, you will find it almost a dead ringer for the KJV. Language and words, that was the 16th century before W. Shakespeare was even thought about.

Call it whatever you want, it's not spoken today apart from those of us who know and understand it and then only when we pray aloud, if even then.

God gave the NT in a common language of the then living generation.
Why would He not want to do so today?

Peradventure thou wouldst agree?

HankD

 

[Thermodynamics]

I suggest with the slanguage of to-day, especially in the USA and Canada, young people would have enough trouble with any English version, modern or otherwise.

Cheers,

Jim

That is a gem of truth if I have ever heard it! I am only 37, but I had the great good-fortune to have parents who insisted on sending me to a private school where reading a lot of the classics (including the King James Bible) was expected of me. I spent my teen years reading things like Tacitus, Homer and Livy.

I believe a big part of the problem with understanding the King James is just a general lack of exposure to good writing. I don't say this to insult anyone of course, but I do believe it is true.

 

[HankD]

That is a gem of truth if I have ever heard it! I am only 37, but I had the great good-fortune to have parents who insisted on sending me to a private school where reading a lot of the classics (including the King James Bible) was expected of me. I spent my teen years reading things like Tacitus, Homer and Livy.

I believe a big part of the problem with understanding the King James is just a general lack of exposure to good writing. I don't say this to insult anyone of course, but I do believe it is true.

Modernization of the language is a priority...

Read this passage from the KJV and then the same one below from the NIV.

1 Chronicles 26 KJV

12 Among these were the divisions of the porters, even among the chief men, having wards one against another, to minister in the house of the LORD.
13 And they cast lots, as well the small as the great, according to the house of their fathers, for every gate.
14 And the lot eastward fell to Shelemiah. Then for Zechariah his son, a wise counsellor, they cast lots; and his lot came out northward.
15 To Obededom southward; and to his sons the house of Asuppim.
16 To Shuppim and Hosah the lot came forth westward, with the gate Shallecheth, by the causeway of the going up, ward against ward.
17 Eastward were six Levites, northward four a day, southward four a day, and toward Asuppim two and two.
18 At Parbar westward, four at the causeway, and two at Parbar.
19 These are the divisions of the porters among the sons of Kore, and among the sons of Merari.​

1 Chronicles 26 NIV
12 These divisions of the gatekeepers, through their chief men, had duties for ministering in the temple of the LORD, just as their relatives had.
13 Lots were cast for each gate, according to their families, young and old alike.
14 The lot for the East Gate fell to Shelemiah. Then lots were cast for his son Zechariah, a wise counselor, and the lot for the North Gate fell to him.
15 The lot for the South Gate fell to Obed-Edom, and the lot for the storehouse fell to his sons.
16 The lots for the West Gate and the Shalleketh Gate on the upper road fell to Shuppim and Hosah. Guard was alongside of guard:
17 There were six Levites a day on the east, four a day on the north, four a day on the south and two at a time at the storehouse.
18 As for the court to the west, there were four at the road and two at the court itself.
19 These were the divisions of the gatekeepers who were descendants of Korah and Merari.​

Or:​

2 Corinthians 6 KJV
11 O ye Corinthians, our mouth is open unto you, our heart is enlarged.
12 Ye are not straitened in us, but ye are straitened in your own bowels.
13 Now for a recompence in the same, (I speak as unto my children,) be ye also enlarged.​

2 Corinthians 6 NIV
11 We have spoken freely to you, Corinthians, and opened wide our hearts to you.
12 We are not withholding our affection from you, but you are withholding yours from us.
13 As a fair exchange-- I speak as to my children-- open wide your hearts also.​

HankD​

 

[Jim1999]

I am a little older at 82 but had a similar background. I went to a Church of England all boys school (boarding) right through form 6..which is like hgh school and first year university. We majored in languages and all the classics. I still read a lot of the classics. As you, Bible classes were mandatory, leading up to Confirmation, and that wasn't a formality in those days. We used the KJV throughout alongside the Common Book of Prayer (which also followed the KJV).

I never had any difficulty with the KJV, Shakespeare, Milton or Dickens, German, French or Latin. In seminary I had a tougher time with Greek and Hebrew. I got excellent marks, but I was never proficient in them.

Cheers,

Jim

 

[robycop3]

The KJV is neither 17th century english, or Shakespearean. It is Tyndale, when William Tyndale started to translate the Greek and Hebrew, he found the English language in its form of the time; to be inadequate.

So he developed what is now called Shakespearean english, to get a closer match. So without Tyndale there would have been no KJV, or W. Shakespeare. If you go on-line and look up the Tyndale Bible, you will find it almost a dead ringer for the KJV. Language and words, that was the 16th century before W. Shakespeare was even thought about.

Actually, Sam, Shakespeare did more to revise the English language than anyone else. He coined a barge-load of new words that are still in use now, many with their original meanings as Will used'em. He also made many adjectives & adverbs outta a number of nouns, and vice-versa.

The KJV was written in the most modern English of its time, Shakespeare notwithstanding. Nothing wrong with having God's word in OUR English, as God intended.

 

[Samuel Owen]

Notwithstanding, I thought someone might like to know, that Shakespeare was a big ripoff (slang), or in modern terms a "pleduriser". He claimed William Tyndales poetry for his own.

 

[HankD]

I am a little older at 82 but had a similar background. I went to a Church of England all boys school (boarding) right through form 6..which is like hgh school and first year university. We majored in languages and all the classics. I still read a lot of the classics. As you, Bible classes were mandatory, leading up to Confirmation, and that wasn't a formality in those days. We used the KJV throughout alongside the Common Book of Prayer (which also followed the KJV).

I never had any difficulty with the KJV, Shakespeare, Milton or Dickens, German, French or Latin. In seminary I had a tougher time with Greek and Hebrew. I got excellent marks, but I was never proficient in them.

Cheers,

Jim

Jim, you are the exception compared to todays "man on the street".

Most perishing souls today wouldn't know the difference between Milton and Mickey Mouse.

Or try this the next time you ask a waitress for coffee and a doughnut:

Peradventure I shouldst find grace in thine eyes, wouldst thou fetchest for me a vessel of coffee and a dainty cake?

HankD

 

[Jim1999]

well Hank, when I first came to America, I was at university and had a three bedroom flat for just myself. A young girl arrived late and so I offered " to bed her for the night" and she slapped my face. She didn't even understand common English..It only meant that I was offering her a place to stay for the night free of cost. Common English changes from country to country.

Cheers,

Jim

 

[EdSutton]

I have not spoken against MV's other than to say I don't care for them!

By definition then, you would not care for the KJV, for it is properly and correctly one of your undefined "MV", as I, as well as a few others, have pointed out before. Even if I were to allow you your statement for the purpose of argument, what constitutes one of these undefined "MV"? When do your MV start? 2000? 1950? 1900? 1850? 1800? 1750? 1612? 1560? You have to define this somewhere, and draw whatever line in the sand, when this is said.

Would you consider an arbitrary date of, say 250 years, as a reasonable compromise? Why don't we try that one, for starters, and we'll work from there, shortly. Seems like a nice round figure.

As for an attack on the KJV, what is this, if not an attack?

As Jim1999 wisely answered, this is an opinion. (Technically, this is not even a 'preference.') Whether one agrees with this opinion or not is entirely irrelevant. It is still just an opinion, and it is not "an attack", which charge you have accused Rippon of at least 5 times, by count, on these pages. Rippon has never, to my knowledge, suggested the the KJV is not the written Word of God, which I would consider an attack. Rippon has said, multiple times, in so many words, that he desires a most modern rendering in the English language, mentioning that there are several places he considers the wording outdated, including the NASB, NIV, ESV, NKJV, and HCSB in various renderings. FTR, it's kind of hard to get too much more 'modern' that the ESV or HCSB, considering that the ESV first appeared in print in 2001, a little over 7 years ago, and the none of the HCSB is older than a decade, with the current copyright of 2003.

I'm just giving added weight to the fact that the Anglican Version is woefully out-of-date. A contemporary English reader of Scripture needs to study a more modern version so that understanding will result.The KJV family has had its day.

Again, this is opinion, only - no better and/or no worse than any other, including yours and/or mine. FTR, "Anglican Version" is in no way an "attack" either, but an historical fact, here. It happens to be the one thing in your highlighted quote that is entirely factual, as opposed to Rippon's personal opinion.

Now let's get down to "brass tacks", with a coupla' my own questions. Are there any English versions you would consider as "out-of-date"? May I assume that you consider the KJV as entirely up-to-date? How about the D/R? BISH? GEN? MCB ? TYN? WYC-P? WYC? WSX? Would you consider any of these "English" renderings, wordings, spellings, etc., as "out-of-date"? Which ones say this in the best wording for us to understand, today? Let's take an arbitrary verse in Luke, that I believe you would be familiar with.

ʃoðlice wæs geworden þa hi þar wæron. hire dagas wæron gefyllede þæt heo cende. (WSX)

ʃoþli it is do whan þei weren þere, þe da3es ben fulfild þat ʃhe ʃhulde bern child (WYC)

And it was don, while þei weren þere, the da3es weren fulfillid, þat ʃche ʃchulde bere child. (WYC-P)

And it was done, while they were there, the days were fulfilled, that she should bear child. (WYC, 2001 - a 'Modern Version')

And it fortuned whyll they were there her tyme was come that ʃhe ʃhuld be delyvered. (TYN)

And ʃo it was, that while they were there, the dayes were accompliʃhed that ʃhe ʃhould be deliuered. ('A')

And it fortuned whyle they were there, ye tyme was come, that ʃhe ʃhulde be delyuered. (MCB)

And ʃo it was, that whyle they were there, the dayes were accomplyʃʃhed, that ʃhe ʃhoulde be deliuered. (BISH)

And ʃo it was, that while they were there, the daies were accompliʃhed that ʃhee ʃhoulde be deliuered, (GEN)

(And, of course, now a coupla' of the ever popular)

And it came to pass that when they were there, her days were accomplished that she should be delivered. ('D')

And while they were there, the days were fulfilled, that she should be delivered. (WES)

And it fortuned while they were there, her time was come that she should be delivered. (TNT- a 'Modern Version')

(And while I'm at it, a couple of the real 'MV') And while they were there, the time came for her to give birth. (ESV)

While they were there, the time came for her to give birth. (HCSB)

(And of course, the familiar-) And so it was, that while they were there, the days were accomplished that she should be delivered. ('B')

[FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]And so it was that while they were there, the days were accomplished that she should be delivered. ('C') [/FONT]

One of these, of course, happens to be King James. (Without looking it up, I'm sure you can guess which one, no?) A couple or three happen to be a 'real' MV, as they are from this century.

Every one of these verses is exactly the same verse. My point of this little exercise, is that I suspect you probably cannot actually tell which is which, as to any 'MV', but you might wish to prove me wrong. Wanna' give it a shot, while giving Rippon a brief rest?

Ed

 

[EdSutton]

Listen, I'll only post this once. If you can read these threads, and say that the people on here that prefer the KJV, and defend it, are not looked down upon, ridiculed, and made to feel un-welcome, then you had better quit lying to yourselves, and open your eyes. There are several members here who've made me feel like I'm some redneck, illiterate hillbilly because I defend the KJV. I've stated many times, and I will again, Read whatever version you like. Some I think are OK, some I don't. But quit telling us that those who prefer the KJV are not treated differently. It seems to be pretty obvious to the newer members here, and was the FIRST thing I noticed upon joining.

FTR, my Bible says King James on the flyleaf, and I am a real redneck and hillbilly, I guess, for I do live in some hilly country. But I'll claim that I am not illiterate. (Illiteracy and Language Cop don't work well together.)

Prefer King James? My personal preference is for a particular King James. However, that is just that, my preference, for it is not any factual basis of distinction.

Defend it? You bet, just as I will also defend any other version, insofar as it appears to be a solid rendering of the text, for the passage in question, into our English language. Incidentally, that is why I have from time to time cited over 40 varying versions from WYC, TYN, and MCB thru ESV, HSCB, and even in a moment of weakness or two, the TNIV.

Let's not cross-over into textual basis, in this, for that is an entirely different question. A very good textual basis in the Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek, can have a poor rendering in English. That is not the fault of the text, by any stretch. I would offer that a poor text could have a good and faithful rendering of what it says, as well. That does not equal to an accurate transmission, however, for the basis was flawed, to begin with.

This is attempting to compare apples and oranges, IMO.

Multiple posters here have defended the KJV, for what it is, an overall good version, including several Moderators, without 'elevating' it above other versions, including some that use it on a regular basis, or as their usual Bible. I would suggest that I do this, as well.

But when some supposed fact that is historically inaccurate is presented, or some unsupported or unsupportable statement is made, regarding any version, there I draw the line. Is there something wrong with that, in your opinion?

Ed