-
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!
Is it just my imagination, or are many folks here hostile to people who read the KJV?
- Thread starter Thermodynamics
- Start date
- Status
:wavey:
Personally I don't care. The fact remains that the best translation I have ever seen is the KJV. Where the general public may have trouble reading Old English in its meaning, more often than not newer versions are translations of the KJV into new english. Thus the analogy of copying an audio tape to audio tape to audio tape.
I would really like to see a new translation from the old Greek and Hebrew scriptures done by a rather large team of devout language masters under threat of dyer punishment inf getting it wrong, where every passage was not only reviewed by an overseer but a second group working on other passages.
And no, the KJV translation isn't a perfect translation which is one of the reasons why my name is Jonah.
But so far the King James translation of the Bible is the most exact I have seen if you get shakespear time period speech.
Personally I don't care. The fact remains that the best translation I have ever seen is the KJV. Where the general public may have trouble reading Old English in its meaning, more often than not newer versions are translations of the KJV into new english. Thus the analogy of copying an audio tape to audio tape to audio tape.
I would really like to see a new translation from the old Greek and Hebrew scriptures done by a rather large team of devout language masters under threat of dyer punishment inf getting it wrong, where every passage was not only reviewed by an overseer but a second group working on other passages.
And no, the KJV translation isn't a perfect translation which is one of the reasons why my name is Jonah.
But so far the King James translation of the Bible is the most exact I have seen if you get shakespear time period speech.
NaasPreacher (C4K)
Well-Known Member
Jonah said:
Which new versions are translations of the KJV into new english [sic]? I wasn't aware than any of the major versions were.
Thermodynamics
Member
Jonah said:
I agree I would love to see a new translation with the Majority Text as the basis. I find it interesting that almost every new translation done for the last 100 or so years has been done on the basis of four manuscripts while the 5000 or so MT manuscripts have been almost ignored.
I do not see in this any sort of sinister plot on the part of those doing the translating. On the contrary, I believe that most of them are sincere and dedicated Christians who are trying to serve God in what they are doing. Take for example Bill Mounce, he is very dedicated to teaching God's Word and has done more to teach Koine Greek to the ignorant masses (like myself) than any other living person. That I have been slow in learning what little I have managed to learn is due to my ignorance not his lack of skill. I have the highest respect for Mounce and believe with all my heart that his motives are pure and beyond question. Mounce was one of the ESV translators, that alone shows me that at least as far as the ESV goes, the translators were among the best and brightest and that they had their heart in the right place. I believe the same to be true of the NASB.
Like the KJV, the ESV and NASB are very careful word-for-word translations. My concerns are not with the people doing the translation in most cases. I do think there are a few new translations where a very fluid thought-for-thought method is used or even worse where the person(s) doing the translation are trying to promote some agenda of their own.
My concerns are with the choice of manuscripts being translated. Because the manuscripts being translated make up only about 1/1250th of the total number of manuscripts I have to question how much of His blessing God has shown to the Minority Text family. The Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are both full of copy errors, omit large sections of scripture, show evidence of many words being erased and re-written et cetera, so I have to question how accurate these texts can be.
My main concern however has to do with the time and location where these manuscripts were produced. They came from Alexandria, Egypt in the 3rd-4th Century, at that time Alexandria was a Gnostic hotbed. These manuscripts are shorter by several thousand words than the Majority Text. How can we be sure this is not due to Gnostic editing? While it is true that the Diety of Christ is not removed, that doctrine does appear (in my opinion) to be ever so slightly chipped awat at.
Now, having said all of that, I do want to be clear that I am in no way suggesting that the Authorized Version is perfect nor am I suggesting that the (properly translated) modern versions are not the Word of God. If I were to wake up one day and find that every copy of the AV was gone from off the face of the earth I would run out and get myself an ESV and I would be very thankful to God for that blessing. However, I do see reasons believe that the Majority Text is more true to the original autographs than the Minority Text is.
Thermodynamics
Member
C4K said:
Isn't the NKJV? I have not read that version, but that was my understanding.
Askjo said:
Cite your source. The TR type texts are generally much younger that the Alexandrian
If you mean the Alexandrian (CT-MV) vs the Byzantine (TR-KJV) text types that may be a different story.
Harry A. Sturz wrote a book called The Byzantine Text Type and New Testament Textual Criticism.
In it he has elaborate charts in which he has collated papyri texts such as p46 and p66 which pre-date either Alexandrian or Byzantine texts and found both text types represented in the papyri. In fact p66 (AD120-AD180) is an almost 50-50 split.
What he did prove is that both families are equally ancient and had a very early on cleavage.
Yes, He did much to deflate the Wescott and Hort theory of a 4th century conflation as many of the papyri readings were of the longer conflated type.
Please let us know where you obtained your information.
Dr. Peter Ruckman?
HankD
Last edited:
NaasPreacher (C4K)
Well-Known Member
Thermodynamics said:
Nope - it is translated from the same text body as the KJV.
Thermodynamics
Member
rbell said:
Ha ha ha!!!! You know I am planning on coming out with a 4th Law this fall. I think the 2nd Law might be starting to show it's ugly face in this thread.:laugh:
Thermodynamics
Member
C4K said:
On that point I stand humbly corrected, thank you.
The entire Church was struggling with heresy in the first 3 centuries including the Byzantine and Western Church.Thermodynamics said:
As a matter of fact an Alexandrian was a champion and defender of the true Faith.
Have you heard of the Alexandrian Athanasius? a 4th century bishop (a KJV word BTW) of Alexandria. A champion of the faith defending the Holy Trinity and the deity of Christ.
It was also Athanasius who first named the 27 books of the NT as the Canon of the NT Scripture (among other things).
RE: His defense of the deity of Christ (just before this time of raging debate almost the entire church was Arian) won over the Church to Trinitarianism.
BTW he used 1 John 5:7 (old Itala) as part of his defense.
The surprising thing was that no one balked at the verse only it's meaning.
Found in the public domain at :
http://justus.anglican.org/resources/bio/152.html
HankD
franklinmonroe
Active Member
Already been done. The ALT (Analytical-Literal Translation) by Gary F. Zeolla is now in its third edition and is based on the Byzantine Majority Text. Also, there is the The Byzantine Majority New Testament by Paul W. Esposito.Thermodynamics said:
franklinmonroe
Active Member
Not true, in at least two senses. First, the eclectic Greek text does consider and utilize the Byzantine Family of evidence (thus 'eclectic'). Second, there have been so many more MSS found, especially the papyri & DSS, that it cannot be truthful said that any recent translations (circa 1960 and later) are based upon just four MSS.Thermodynamics said:
Thermodynamics
Member
franklinmonroe said:
Franklin, thank you for your reply. While it is true that the better modern versions did rely on the Majority Text to some extent, it was only in a supporting role as I understand it. Where the Byzantine differed from the Alexandrian, the Alexandrian was deferred to. The DSS do not come into play with regard to the text of the NT, they contain no NT documents. The papyri form a subset of groups sort of unto themselves. They are at times oftyen in radical disagreement with one another and in any case like Sinaiticus and Vaticanus have their source in Egypt.
Samuel Owen
New Member
Thermodynamics.
This one claims to be just that, KJV in more modern english. And from comparing a few of the sample verses they supply, it is.
But ordering it from the printer, is the only way to get it. They say available in book stores, but we have three here, none of which have ever heard of it.
http://www.kj21.com/
This one claims to be just that, KJV in more modern english. And from comparing a few of the sample verses they supply, it is.
But ordering it from the printer, is the only way to get it. They say available in book stores, but we have three here, none of which have ever heard of it.
http://www.kj21.com/
Thermodynamics
Member
I have seen one called "KJVer."
Samuel Owen
New Member
No I don't think so, I looked at it, it looks more like the KJV21. There is a difference, the KJ21 retains the thee's and thou's, and replaces only the hard to get at words. But in a lot of places it changes nothing.
I've threatened several times to order one, but haven't carried it out yet.
- Status