KJV is well loved and used

[Rippon]

No problem with this as long as the newer translations are true to the underlying majority text.

You are aware, aren't you --that the Majority Text differs from the dozens of TR text types?

 

[Logos1560]

No problem with this as long as the newer translations are true to the underlying majority text.

You are aware, aren't you --that the Majority Text differs from the dozens of TR text types?

It may be difficult to get KJV defenders to apply their own stated standards or measures consistently and justly.

The KJV is not true to an actual "majority" text in which all the readings are those found in a majority of the existing original-language manuscript copies of Scripture.

The multiple textual-varying sources which underlie the KJV have a good number of readings found in a minority of preserved original-language manuscript copies and even have a few conjectures found in no known Greek New Testament manuscripts.

According to one majority Byzantine text edition of the New Testament, the KJV may possibly follow minority readings as many as 1800 times.

 

[TCassidy]

Earth to Pastor Sam. Earth to Pastor Sam. Come in please. Earth to Pastor Sam.

I still have not seen your response to my question regarding your blanket statement concerning modern bible translations. Just click here.

KJV is well loved and used

 

[TCassidy]

You are aware, aren't you --that the Majority Text differs from the dozens of TR text types?

Just as UBS 1 differs from UBS 2 which differs from UBS 3 which differs from UBS 4 which differs from UBS 5.

Just as NA 1 differs from NA 2 which differs from NA 3 which differs, and so on through NA 28.

The point is, of course, that the various TRs (around 30 of them) are (flawed) representatives of the Byzantine Textform just as is the Majority Text (H&F). Thinking that those differences invalidate the text forms is rather naive.

 

[rsr]

A fair point, Doc. But it doesn't apply equally.

I don't know anyone who prefers the CT who believes that any attempted reconstruction of the text is perfect. And they are not especially bothered by the fact that NA 28 is different from NA 3. Just like I don't any MT text advocates going hammer and tong about one of the two major MTs being a tool of the devil. Even TR advocates admit there are variants within the tradition.

But KJVO-onlyism requires that the KJV translators selected the original reading in every case and that they then perfectly translated each word or phrase. Thus they cannot really be TR folks; the particular (and sometimes peculiar) choices of the KJV translators created a special form of the TR, the true text that cannot be deviated from.

 

[TCassidy]

A fair point, Doc. But it doesn't apply equally.

I will respond only to your first paragraph. The other two are not on topic to what I am talking about.

Every text of the New Testament differs from every other text, so the singling out of the TR is unwarranted except to counter a KJVO argument, and even then it is best to admit there are variants in all Greek Texts.

And as to being equal, let's move back to the Greek manuscripts for a moment. The primary foundation for the eclectic texts are, among others, Aleph and B, which differ from each other over 3000 times in the Gospels alone.

I don't find that at all troubling, but nevertheless, it is a fact.

As I said in my earlier post, there are over 30 TRs, all different. But all still representing (in their own flawed way) the Byzantine textform which I believe is most likely to represent the autographs.

When I got out of seminary I was using UBS 2, and understood the best methodology of textual criticism to be the "reasoned eclecticism" which has produced NA/USB. I have now reconsidered that opinion, largely though the writings and personal conversations with Dr. Maurice Robinson, and although I am a neophyte compared to him, I agree with his "reasoned transmissionalism" even though I am far far less knowledgeable than he. (He has forgotten more than I will ever know on the subject.) I wholeheartedly recommend his The Greek New Testament for Beginning Readers: Byzantine Textform & Verb Parsing.

Well, I have rambled enough. Good night.

 

[rsr]

Thanks for responding, Doc.

I have nothing but respect for Dr. Robinson. I respect all committed Christians who are attempting to recover the words of the autographs. That's because they believe the words are important because they define our faith.

Burgon and Scrivener, Wescott, Daniel Wallace, to name a few. They were all motivated by the belief that the word of God matters and it's important to get it right. Some are wrong in their selections, but they all believed the right words matter.

Some are willing to take the time and effort needed in their efforts. Others have no idea what they are doing. I'm sure we could agree on a number of those.

I can read the KJV and be edified. I can read any number of modern translations — including some loose ones — and be edified. The majesty of the Bible transcends our poor human efforts. There are, of course travesties that reflect sectarianism, and they should be avoided.

"For I decided not to know anything among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified," Paul said. That is the essence of the Christian faith. All else is just gloss.

 

[robycop3]

Absurd assertion. This tells me you're not only anti-KJVO, you're clearly anti-KJV. This puts you firmly in the camp of the manmade MYTH of the MVO.


No problem with this as long as the newer translations are true to the underlying majority text.

Well, it IS antiquated! No denying that!

And I admittedly don't use the KJV all that much. It's equivalent to doing all my computer work on a Commodore 64. When that was all I had, it is what it is, but we now have so much better...

And remember, there's NO AUTHORITY for the KJVO myth. But God keeps both old and new translations before us, & I'd be silly to not use whatever HE has provided for our use.

 

[rlvaughn]

Is the OED a credible source? At some point, if they list a word meaning as archaic, I'm going to assume that most (50% +1) people aren't tracking the meaning. Obviously, someone who reads through the KJV annually may buck the trend.

Rob, though on first blush it seems right, I think this is an incorrect assumption. (And it may depend on the dictionary; the full OED requires a subscription, so I don't use it and can't comment on it directly.) Here is the way Dictionary.com explains their division of archaic and obsolete.

In Dictionary.com, the archaic label is described this way: “Archaic is used as a label in this dictionary for terms and definitions that were current roughly as late as 1900 but are now employed only as conscious archaisms.” It describes the obsolete label thus: “Terms and definitions labeled Obsolete in this dictionary have not been in widespread use since the mid 1700s. Unlike some relatively familiar archaic words and phrases, like prithee and thou art, obsolete words and phrases are not easily understood by a modern reader, and obsolete senses of current terms.”

Looking at this and other places, archaisms generally are words that aren't commonly used in current speech, but whose use may or may not cause difficulty in understanding. Archaic words are used in songs, ballads, and hymns, historical records and novels, plays and movies -- often the modern uses are for emphasis, period feel or even humor. In most cases the authors, playwrights, screenwriters, etc. except most people to get the point. All that to indicate only one point -- that I don't think the word archaic necessarily means that over half the people don't understand the meaning.

 

[Pastor Sam]

For what little it might be worth, I think the KJV has a nice cadence when read out loud. Struggling over archaic grammar and words whose meanings have changed are what sends me to more modern translations for personal reading [NASB at present].

The lazy man way. I have problems pronouncing many of the words in the KJV but I am not going to use that as an excuse.

 

[atpollard]

The lazy man way. I have problems pronouncing many of the words in the KJV but I am not going to use that as an excuse.

It isn't about pronunciation ... it is about reading comprehension:

Matthew 14:8 KJV And she, being before instructed of her mother, said, Give me here John Baptist's head in a charger.​

Isn't a charger a type of horse ridden by a knight?
Good thing I already knew the story from my old NIV bible that explained it in 'English'

Matthew 14:8 NIV Prompted by her mother, she said, “Give me here on a platter the head of John the Baptist.”​

 

[rlvaughn]

Isn't a charger a type of horse ridden by a knight?

Yes, unless it is a platter, person who charges, or an apparatus that charges.

 

[TCassidy]

The lazy man way.

Sam, the lazy man way is making a blanket condemnation of the English bibles and not being willing to back up your claim with facts. You keep dodging the question.

Sam, I am still waiting for your response to my post on page 1 of this thread.

Pastor Sam said: ↑
We have some people who don’t think for themselves but keep repeating what others have said. Some like the Democrats.

I then asked:
"But aren't you doing the same thing, Sam by saying

Pastor Sam said: ↑
I think that we are seeing that with all of these new translations we are getting a watered down version of what God is really saying. Everyone has an opinion but what does God say?

You have not demonstrated, using your own original exegesis, that all, or even any, modern translations are watered down. You seem to be repeating what others have said. Like some Democrats.

So, Sam, are you going to be honest and answer the question or are you going to be a "Democrat?"

 

[Jerome]

Again, a Google News search turns up numerous recent articles using "charger" in keeping with the KJB meaning.
As you said, it comes down to poor reading comprehension.

 

[atpollard]

Again, a Google News search turns up numerous recent articles using "charger" in keeping with the KJB meaning.
As you said, it comes down to poor reading comprehension.

Perhaps your search did, but I just entered "charger" in a search under Google News and got NOTHING on platters in the first 20 pages of news articles. Battery chargers of some kind were the most common followed by sports teams named 'charger' with the car by Dodge coming in third.

So your 'test results' were not able to be reproduced.
Few people will read 'charger' and think 'big dish'.

 

[rlvaughn]

Regardless of Google Search -- which likely varies by your individual search history that Google stores -- it's in the dictionary. Merriam-Webster, for example, gives it first, without even a notation that it is archaic!

What if people read platter and think phonographic record? (Oh, wait, that is archaic!)

 

[Rob_BW]

I don’t think meta date would have such a drastic change in one's news searches.

And platters are what's inside a hard disk drive.

 

[rlvaughn]

What's a hard disk drive, a hard platter drive?

 

[Rob_BW]

Pretty much.

 

[Jerome]

LOL, in a story from just yesterday from, get this, a professional wrestling news site:

WWE: Rumored New Championship Has Design Leaked

For several weeks, it has been rumored that WWE is introducing a new championship to 205 Live. After seeing a potential design for the belt, maybe they should hold off a bit....How about the main plate?...The round portion looks like a charger you’d find on the table at a fancy restaurant