-
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!
KJV vs the original Greek
- Thread starter Salty
- Start date
Because they see some mistakes/errors even within TR, but the Lord to them inspired into English the 1611 just as He did Original 66 Books, so no mistakes/errors!
It makes them extremely uncomfortable to even entertain the idea that the English Bible can have a mistake. So if the KJV is set as the standard for what the Bible should say, everything else, even the Greek must be wrong.
Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Exactly. When KJV-only advocates claim or assume that the KJV is the final authority, they end up having to diminish or undermine the greater authority of the preserved Scriptures in the original languages.
They have to try to avoid or ignore the fact that later KJV editors/printers accepted the greater authority of the preserved Scriptures in the original languages when they made some revisions/changes/corrections to the 1611 edition of the KJV. Some of them will only admit to errors in the 1611 edition in cases where they can try to blame them on the printer or typesetters.
If you don't know any Greek, the KJV would certainly be better
That is why some of them would prefer translators not translate off Greek/Hebrew texts, but off Kjv itself!
Dave G
Well-Known Member
Do you know where we can find the Original Greek?
Most people here seem to have a problem nailing it down.
What's more, since all Greek text collations have differences ( TR vs. CT. vs. MT, NAS 1 through 25, USB 1-5 ), and no one manuscript, uncial, papyrus or other bit agrees exactly with each other ( much less "Aleph" with "B", since they differ in over 2000 places ), then where does one find "the original", except in the vast number of inherited copies?
But to answer the question:
I have no idea.
The AV is not better than the original Greek ( though hard to pin down for some people, it seems ).
While I am of the opinion that it is an English translation that has been shown to not be absolutely perfect.
At the same time, I believe it to be far superior to any of today's English translations, bar none.
Despite the fact that its English is "dated" compared to the less-concise and varied language known as English that we use ( mainly in America ) today, I see don't see a problem with using it.
I'm not of the opinion that I should translate the Greek using the AV, but I definitely hold to the firm belief that I cannot trust most of the translators that are doing the work today, versus the ones that were doing the work during the Reformation.
From my perspective, today's motives for translating into English are far different than they were 400 years ago.
37818
Well-Known Member
Family 35 is to be the identity of the New Tesramennt text. The constant witness being the text which all manuscript types agree at 100%. While the typical f35 reading may be of also MT, but sometimes not when the reading is unique to one manuscript type.
Which manuscript of family 35 is the manuscript. None are the same. In fact, Pickering produce a f35 NT that doesnt match a single f35 manuscript
Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
People can choose to believe things that are not true, and people can believe what they wish was true, but cannot prove to be actually true.
When compared to the same standard of the preserved Scriptures in the original languages [the traditional Masoretic text and the varying editions of the Textus Receptus], I find that the evidence would show that at least sometimes one of the pre-1611 English Bibles is more accurate than the KJV and that many times the NKJV is more accurate than the KJV.
A consistent, just application of the same measures/standards to the Geneva Bible, the KJV, and the NKJV leads me to conclude that the NKJV usually agrees with the 1560 Geneva Bible when it is clearer or more accurate than the KJV and that the NKJV usually agrees with the KJV when the KJV is more accurate than the 1560 Geneva Bible. The many pages of examples of where the NKJV could be soundly considered more accurate would indicate that the NKJV is likely overall more accurate than the KJV. That evidence would clearly conflict with the unproven assumption that the KJV is supposedly far superior.
My conclusion is based on over 200 pages of examination of the evidence concerning the Geneva Bible, the KJV, and the NKJV, and it considers thousands of renderings [not a select few that may not be typical].
By the way, my bias is for the KJV. I have read the KJV over 50 years. I would like to assume that the KJV is the most accurate English translation, but I have not found that assumption or opinion to be proven to be true by any just application of the same measures/standards in comparing the KJV and other English Bibles to the preserved Scriptures in the original languages.
I have seen no sound case for the opinion that the NKJV translators are not as trustworthy in their translating as the Church of England makers of the KJV.
The KJV translators had a bias for their own Church of England doctrinal views, which was re-enforced by a couple of the biased rules for its making and by the control over the process of the translating by Archbishop Richard Bancroft.
The KJV translators had a bias for their own Church of England doctrinal views, which was re-enforced by a couple of the biased rules for its making and by the control over the process of the translating by Archbishop Richard Bancroft.
37818
Well-Known Member
Well, Peter S. Ruckman in his, The Christian's Handbook of MANUSCRIPT EVIDENCE, Chapter 8, Correcting the Greek with the English, Pages 115-138. A.V. not K.J.V. The A.V. 1611 corrects the corrupt Greek, etc.
37818
Well-Known Member
Are you really that naive? Yes, Pickering produce a f35 GNT. The variants chosen are to explain the other varians. Are tyically to be readings found across all or most manuscript types.
"The constant witness being the text which all manuscript types agree at 100%."
Where is the 100% agreement?
All manuscript "types"? What is a type to you?
Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
The KJVO myth is a purely man-made false doctrine with no Scriptural support whatsoever, even in the KJV itself. A reading of the preface to the AV 1611, the original KJV, will show the reader that not even the AV makers were KJVO,
Dr. Peter S. Ruckman was a quack from the gitgo. Those who think he was a great scholar should read his Mark Of The Beast, in which he wrote that the antichrist will be a 10-foot-tall alien with huge black lips who'll land a space ship in Vatican Square & impart the mark with a kiss from those huge black lips. Sounds more like a Marvel Comix writer than a preacher !
God chose to have the NT written in Koine Greek cuz that was the prevailing language of that time/place, & the foremost language used by His chosen penmen. Same for the OT being written in ancient Hebrew & Aramaic.
No translation of anything from one language to another can be superior to the original for the simple fact that each language has its own particular subtleties & nuances that are impossible to convey into another language. But none of that is lost on GOD, who made/makes all languages. He sees to it that the MESSAGES of His word are set forth in over 2400 languages & dialects of today.
The only way a Bible translation, say, in English, is superior to the original languages is in the fact that there are far-more English readers than there are readers of Koine Greek, Aramaic, or ancient Hebrew, hence, more people are able to read a translation of God's word than there would be without any translations.
Dr. Peter S. Ruckman was a quack from the gitgo. Those who think he was a great scholar should read his Mark Of The Beast, in which he wrote that the antichrist will be a 10-foot-tall alien with huge black lips who'll land a space ship in Vatican Square & impart the mark with a kiss from those huge black lips. Sounds more like a Marvel Comix writer than a preacher !
God chose to have the NT written in Koine Greek cuz that was the prevailing language of that time/place, & the foremost language used by His chosen penmen. Same for the OT being written in ancient Hebrew & Aramaic.
No translation of anything from one language to another can be superior to the original for the simple fact that each language has its own particular subtleties & nuances that are impossible to convey into another language. But none of that is lost on GOD, who made/makes all languages. He sees to it that the MESSAGES of His word are set forth in over 2400 languages & dialects of today.
The only way a Bible translation, say, in English, is superior to the original languages is in the fact that there are far-more English readers than there are readers of Koine Greek, Aramaic, or ancient Hebrew, hence, more people are able to read a translation of God's word than there would be without any translations.
Would you claim that the KJV translators had a problem nailing it down?
The rules for the making of the KJV and the KJV translators themselves simply referred to "the Greek," and they did not identify a specific printed edition of the Greek NT or a specific Greek NT manuscript as having nailed down the original Greek. The title page of the 1611 edition's NT does say that it was translated from "the original Greek," but that statement was likely made by the printer. The KJV translators did not follow any one of the varying Greek NT editions available to them 100%. Instead they picked and choose readings from different Greek NT editions, in effect with their textual criticism decisions creating a new NT text. The KJV translators may have been unaware of the fact that the printed Greek NT editions available to them had some conjectures found in no known Greek NT manuscripts and some additions translated from the Latin Vulgate.
It is also clear that the KJV translators did not claim that their textual decisions concerning the Greek were correct or perfect. In their preface, the KJV translators directly asserted that their choice of readings in some cases may not be the correct one, and that the one that put in their textual marginal note may be the correct one instead.
Do you reveal that you may apply a different measures/standard to people here than you are willing to apply to the Church of England makers of the KJV?
Are you saying that the translators on the Nas/Esv/Nkjv/Niv were not saved, heretics, or somehow inferior to 1611 Kjv team?