King James vs the original Greek

[Salty]

I'm sure some of you remember Steven Anderson (pastor) - Wikipedia

Well, his thoughts on Steven L Anderson: Beware of "Going Back to the Greek" in Sermons

 

[Conan]

Anti-educational pastor. The 1611 KJV Translators would disagree with them. In fact everything about the real KJV disagrees with him.

 

[Logos1560]

Herb Evans wrote: "We do not believe in correcting the Hebrew and Greek, because we ignore the Hebrew and Greek" (The Flaming Torch, Oct./Nov./Dec., 1999, p. 4).

 

[Yeshua1]

Anti-educational pastor. The 1611 KJV Translators would disagree with them. In fact everything about the real KJV disagrees with him.

The 1611 translators would never see the Kjv as having superiority over the original languages texts!

 

[Wesley Briggman]

The 1611 translators would never see the Kjv as having superiority over the original languages texts!

Does the "original languages texts" exists?

 

[Yeshua1]

Does the "original languages texts" exists?

Yes, its found in the Ct/MT/TR!

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

Speaking of which, back in the days when the KJV reigned in my churches, the preaching would often focus on explaining the archaic English. As newer translations came along, the preaching began to focus on explaining the original language.

 

[Wesley Briggman]

Yes, its found in the Ct/MT/TR!

That is all Greek to me!!

Can you be more explicit please - can't find what any of those abbreviations mean. Just trying to be better informed.

 

[Conan]

CT stands for critical text. In todays time the Greek Text of Nestle/Aland is usually refered to. Bibles like the New American Standard Version, English Standard Version, New Revised Standard Version, New International Version use this Greek Text.

MT stands for Majority Text, also refered to as Byzantine Text. This Greek Text has the majority of Greek Manuscripts behind it. Majority Text.com for a translation.

TR stands for Textus Receptus. The early modern English Bibles are made from these texts. William Tyndale, Geneva Bible, King James Version.

 

[Van]

I disagree with the premises of the linked article as follows:

1) Doing so implies that there are hidden meanings in the Bible that only someone who knows Greek or Hebrew can reveal. Checking the translation choices to verify a proper understanding of the text does not imply error in the translation under study. But like the Bereans, it is wise to check what people (translators) say against the word of God. Here is a link:
Who were the Bereans in the Bible? | GotQuestions.org

2) Doing so implies that the Bible we preach from is not completely accurate or fully translated. Right, our translations are not inspired and thus fallible.

3) The tendency among preachers is to not be fluent in Koine Greek, but rather to blindly rely on lexicons and other man-made study tools. Right, I have many times been profoundly wrong in my initial take from the study of Reverse Interlinears and Lexicons. But I have been "put straight" sometimes not too gently, and the resultant viewpoint put back on track, so the reward in my opinion is worth the risk.

4) 99% of pastors are nowhere near as qualified as the KJV translators, yet they flippantly correct the translation using their amateurish knowledge of Greek. Sounds like an unqualified claim from a KJVO advocate. Coming to the conclusion that the NASB or NIV or ESB better translates the message of God concerning a particular verse is hardly relying upon amateurish knowledge.

5) If the pastor goes back to the Greek, most listeners have no clue whether or not what he is saying is true and must blindly trust the pastor. Yes, everyone who sits under a Pastor's teachings is dependent upon the Pastor presenting what he believes is true. But Pastors are fallible too, and they make mistakes. A dear Pastor of mine, gave a sermon based on two differing words in a verse. Later, much to his dismay, he discovered in the original language, both words were the same word.
But he, rather humorously, fessed up and believe it or not, his credibility went up.

 

[Logos1560]

Does the "original languages texts" exists?

Yes, the original language texts of Scripture still exist. It is the autographs that are not known to exist on earth, but copies exist.

Even copies of the same multiple varying printed original-language editions of Scriptures used in the making of the KJV still exist.

 

[Logos1560]

Prayer is how a person named Logos can be brought to that same faith in the more pure word of God. More pure than the prophets.

The Authority and Inspiration of the KJV is as good as it's integrity, which is perfect.

This poster would seem to suggest and believe that the KJV is "more pure" than the preserved Scriptures in the original languages.

 

[Yeshua1]

CT stands for critical text. In todays time the Greek Text of Nestle/Aland is usually refered to. Bibles like the New American Standard Version, English Standard Version, New Revised Standard Version, New International Version use this Greek Text.

MT stands for Majority Text, also refered to as Byzantine Text. This Greek Text has the majority of Greek Manuscripts behind it. Majority Text.com for a translation.

TR stands for Textus Receptus. The early modern English Bibles are made from these texts. William Tyndale, Geneva Bible, King James Version.

Excellent and concise summary!
And the word of God in the Greek texts can be found in any of those Greek texts would be my assertion

 

[Bassoonery]

I disagree with the premises of the linked article as follows:

1) Doing so implies that there are hidden meanings in the Bible that only someone who knows Greek or Hebrew can reveal. Checking the translation choices to verify a proper understanding of the text does not imply error in the translation under study. But like the Bereans, it is wise to check what people (translators) say against the word of God. Here is a link:
Who were the Bereans in the Bible? | GotQuestions.org

2) Doing so implies that the Bible we preach from is not completely accurate or fully translated. Right, our translations are not inspired and thus fallible.

3) The tendency among preachers is to not be fluent in Koine Greek, but rather to blindly rely on lexicons and other man-made study tools. Right, I have many times been profoundly wrong in my initial take from the study of Reverse Interlinears and Lexicons. But I have been "put straight" sometimes not too gently, and the resultant viewpoint put back on track, so the reward in my opinion is worth the risk.

4) 99% of pastors are nowhere near as qualified as the KJV translators, yet they flippantly correct the translation using their amateurish knowledge of Greek. Sounds like an unqualified claim from a KJVO advocate. Coming to the conclusion that the NASB or NIV or ESB better translates the message of God concerning a particular verse is hardly relying upon amateurish knowledge.

5) If the pastor goes back to the Greek, most listeners have no clue whether or not what he is saying is true and must blindly trust the pastor. Yes, everyone who sits under a Pastor's teachings is dependent upon the Pastor presenting what he believes is true. But Pastors are fallible too, and they make mistakes. A dear Pastor of mine, gave a sermon based on two differing words in a verse. Later, much to his dismay, he discovered in the original language, both words were the same word.
But he, rather humorously, fessed up and believe it or not, his credibility went up.

Yes. There is some sense in some of his warnings, even for a non-KJVO context, but it does seem like a case of throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

On a completely tangential note, I had no idea he has written his own church piano course! I found the corresponding Youtube channel too - puts him in a whole new light! I am super curious and would love to get my hands on copies of them.

 

[Yeshua1]

Yes. There is some sense in some of his warnings, even for a non-KJVO context, but it does seem like a case of throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

On a completely tangential note, I had no idea he has written his own church piano course! I found the corresponding Youtube channel too - puts him in a whole new light! I am super curious and would love to get my hands on copies of them.

The assumption that the Kjvo would be making on his points seem to be implying that the Kjv itself takes superority over the Hebrew and Greek text themselves!

 

[Dave G]

This poster would seem to suggest and believe that the KJV is "more pure" than the preserved Scriptures in the original languages.

Perhaps he, like me, believes that the "KJV" is purer and more accurate to the originals than most of the newer, more modern translations;
and that the reason is because of the texts used;
But I'm not speaking for him, and I don't see where he is stating that ( as yet ).

As for the originals, they are long gone and that is what these threads revolve around, isn't it...
The question of which copies and which collated Greek text(s) are the closest to them?

 

[Dave G]

The assumption that the Kjvo would be making on his points seem to be implying that the Kjv itself takes superority over the Hebrew and Greek text themselves!

I think that anyone who makes the statement that the "KJV" is superior to the preserved witnesses in other languages,
has not seriously studied the subject, my friend.

To me, they are letting themselves get carried away with a great deal of the rhetoric that is associated with the position...
Which I once did as well.

 

[Alan Gross]

This poster would seem to suggest and believe that the KJV is "more pure" than the preserved Scriptures in the original languages.

That is a very ill-advised philosophy, among many others.

 

[Logos1560]

That is a very ill-advised philosophy, among many others.

Probably over twenty years ago, I heard Jewell Smith speak in person, and I saw the Bibles that he had on display.

Some of the Bibles on display would actually have contradicted his modern KJV-only reasoning/teaching.

 

[Alan Gross]

Probably over twenty years ago, I heard Jewell Smith speak in person, and I saw the Bibles that he had on display.

Some of the Bibles on display would actually have contradicted his modern KJV-only reasoning/teaching.

Inspiration does not always flow in the same set of tracks.

Whatever 1.) the original stone version looked like for, 2.) "Thou shalt not kill" and my saying 3.) "Don't murder", could all three be the inspired word of God.

Overall, as versions, I believe Jewel Smith would see all former versions to the King James, as inspired.

...

The issue is throwing the Supernaturally Inspired baby out with the Noah vs Noe controversy(?).

God Sets out His Criteria for how stringent Inspiration must be established.

Look at how Jesus and the Disciples quote the Old Testament Scriptures!!

How 'close' are they? That is close enough > for INSPIRED WORD Translation, not "thought".



Is there a currupt manuscript collection that contradicts the King James version.

Yeah, that is the full intent of The Kjv publishers, to not use the corrupt and spurious texts ( on which all Modern Verions are based.)

...

The King James is Inspired. once we 'know', in a special sense (like Hellen Keller, dipicted in the movie).

"The Words I Speak unto you, they are Spirit and they are Life."

...

Why the "KJV Only" name, I dunno.

It means, "Received, Majority, Compared textual evidence, for the Preservation of The Inspiration (Self-Contained) as "The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times".
Psalm 12:6