Featured Is the KJV inspired?

Thank you.

 

Oh, come on now. In the first place, it's not a "translation." That's ignorant. It's a Greek New Testament. In the second place, why should I ask anything of Dr. Robinson when you are accusing him of an "attack on the Authority and infallibility of the Holy Bible." Since you start out prejudiced against his monumental work, you prejudice me against your opinions.

Oh, and by the way, he's the one who told me where to get free TR Greek NTs for my Greek 102 class. He's not your enemy.

Dr. Robinson is a good man. He loves the Lord and stands up for the Word of God, conservative theology, other things that please the Lord. Your attack is unwarranted.

 

If it is true that these omissions make a translation (not a Greek NT) "a modern day attack on the Authority and Infallibility of the Holy Bible," then poor Japan. Japanese cannot buy a translation that is not "an attack on the Bible."

I'd have to look up in my copy of the Motoyaku, the original Japanese Bible (which is not strictly from the TR) from about 1870), but I can't right now, since I'm at our seminary retreat. Besides, it's impossible to find, even used. (I looked 4 years all over Yokohama before finding a NT.) However, the Brown translation, the Japanese Classical Bible, the, Colloquial Version, the Shinkaiyaku, the Kyoudou Bible, the JW version, none of these have these passages.

Oh, yes, there was the Nagai NT translation from Stephanus. But it's in classical Japanese which the high schools don't teach anymore), and it's totally out of print. Oh, yeah, there is the Lifeline Japanese NT of which I am the lead translator. It's from the Scrivener NT; but the thing is, it's not in print yet.

About 80,000 of the Lifeline John & Romans have been handed out in Japan. And two ministries are going to hand out many thousands of that and our Mark at the Olympics next summer. Praise the Lord. But the NT has been completed, but is still being proofed. Can't give you one.

 

Perhaps it should be obvious that the phrases and verses in question that SBG objected to happen *not* to be in the vast majority of Greek NT manuscripts that comprise the Byzantine or Majority text.

Don't blame the messenger for merely reporting the factual data...

 

Is the KJV inspired?

Simple question deserves a simple answer. No.

 

First thank you for pointing this variant out.
It was not in the TR text the NKJV translators used. And my TR interlinear only has that reading as a foot note used in Lachmann's TR. Dr Pickering in his F35GNT does not even note the reading. NA26 lists the Greek texts that have it. That reading is also a foot note in the ASV.

 

How about AT Robinson?

 

So in the same family as the TR, but a better text?

 

The Bzt text is better then in those areas? And is it true that it does not handle Revelation translation that well?

 

Are there really any real major changes though between the MT and the CT in regards to doctrines?

 

Is that considered to be the "best" TR text then?

 

Also, make sure to ask why the Kjv calls the Holy Spirit an It, why we have Easter, and why they had Peter and Paul calling Jesus Savior, but not as the great God?
Just saying that all translations have some issues!

 

What is his mistake on the Greek Verb?

 

The problem for some was that he had a work that at times disagreed with the TR!

 

To quote my son: "Yes, in my humble but correct opinion."

 

Verbal aspect is "the view of the action that the speaker chooses to present to the hearer" (David Alan Black, Learn to Read New Testament Greek). A similar term is aktionsart, which is the kind of action portrayed by the verb. Porter takes this too far, completely minimizing the time function of the Greek verbs, even in the present tense.

 

It handles Revelation translation fine. It's just that the Byzantine family of Revelation mss has more variation than one would think. It's complicated.

 

Sure, use it!

 

Greetings! Yes, it is a Greek text, my slip, but not ignorant! The MT has claims that it is an improvement of what has gone before, and even claims to be "the Byzantine Priority"! over what exactly as its omissions of important Doctrinal passages, as shown from the examples that I have shown, shows the lack of serious scholarship in restoring the true NT text, which this text-form is trying to do. The textual evidence for the three examples is very much greater for the inclusion of the texts, than their omission. My attack is on this Byzantine Text because of its claims to being "better" in the NT text, than those that have gone before. With this in mind, one cannot but question the credibility of the textual knowedge of those involved in this Greek text. There is NO justification for their claim to anything "better", when they fail on important Doctrinal passages. I don't doubt for a moment that Dr Robinson is a good man, as were Westcott, Hort, Ellicott, etc, but does not make them "good" in the field of textual criticism, especially when their conclusions are questionable!