KJVO

[Yeshua1]

"Without fault" compared to what document and by whom? I have no reason to think that the translators of the original KJV had any motive but to provide the most truthful translation/interpretation they possibly could. If factual evidence exists proving otherwise, please provide it.

"Without fault" compared to what document and by whom? I have no reason to think that the translators of the original KJV had any motive but to provide the most truthful translation/interpretation they possibly could. If factual evidence exists proving otherwise, please provide it.

Martin is asking if the KJVO here hold that the Kjv itself was perfect, without any mistakes in the translation?

 

[37818]

I believe the KJV is the inerrant Word of God, but the translation is not alone (my NASB is also the inerrant Word of God). The reason is that we are speaking of translations.

The KJV reads, ". . . Son . . ." And the NASB reads, ". . . God . . . ." John 1:18.

 

[Yeshua1]

The KJV reads, ". . . Son . . ." And the NASB reads, ". . . God . . . ." John 1:18.

Jesus is Son and God!

 

[Wesley Briggman]

Martin is asking if the KJVO here hold that the Kjv itself was perfect, without any mistakes in the translation?

Perfect compared to what? Provide a source document for comparison. Thereupon, a comparison can be made. However, how can the document provided for comparison be proven to be perfect?

Round n' Round we go!!

 

[37818]

Jesus is Son and God!

He was with God (John 1:2). John 1:18 either says "Son" or "God."

 

[Martin Marprelate]

The KJV reads, ". . . Son . . ." And the NASB reads, ". . . God . . . ." John 1:18.

Eight Greek manuscripts (according to my UBS 1993 Greek NT) have 'God' whilst over 900 have 'Son' as do a host of Church fathers. Also, almost everywhere else that monogenes ('only begotten') appears in John, it is followed by huios ('Son'), never by theos ('God'). John 1:14; 3:16, 18; 1 John 4:9. The NKJV also has 'Son.'

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Perfect compared to what? Provide a source document for comparison. Thereupon, a comparison can be made. However, how can the document provided for comparison be proven to be perfect?

Round n' Round we go!!

Well, is the KJV translation of Titus 2:13 correct and that of all other versions (except the J.W. New World translation) incorrect?
Titus 2:13, KJV. '......the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ.'
Titus 2:13, NKJV and others. '......the glorious appearing of our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ.'

 

[JonC]

The KJV reads, ". . . Son . . ." And the NASB reads, ". . . God . . . ." John 1:18.

Yes. Begotten Son or begotten God (depending on the manuscript you prefer to use)...with the exact same meaning. God's Word is not a superficial thing. We have to realize these are translations and look at not only the different word choices, the manuscripts, but also the context.

God's Word was not corrupted when the KJV translators unfortunately chose to use the Latin "Lucifer" in translating, and neither was it corrupted when the NASB chose to keep the archaic "so" for "thusly" in John 3:16. One must study.

 

[Wesley Briggman]

Well, is the KJV translation of Titus 2:13 correct and that of all other versions (except the J.W. New World translation) incorrect?
Titus 2:13, KJV. '......the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ.'
Titus 2:13, NKJV and others. '......the glorious appearing of our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ.'

I am not familiar with all other translations, therefore have no basis on which to answer your question.
Which translation do you consider correct?

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Six Hour Warning
This thread will be closed sometime after 9:30 PM Pacific.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I am not familiar with all other translations, therefore have no basis on which to answer your question.
Which translation do you consider correct?

There is a general rule, unknown to the KJV translators, which states that when two nouns are placed together with a single article, they refer to the same person: literally 'the God and Saviour of us.' Therefore the KJV is wrong in this case and also in 2 Peter 1:1 which is similar.

I am not saying that the KJV is not a good translation; I am saying that it is not flawless. Inerrancy is not to be found in a translation. If it is to be found, it will be in the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts.

 

[Jerome]

Well, is the KJV translation of Titus 2:13 correct and that of all other versions (except the J.W. New World translation) incorrect?
Titus 2:13, KJV. '......the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ.'
Titus 2:13, NKJV and others. '......the glorious appearing of our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ.'

the KJV is wrong in this case and also in 2 Peter 1:1 which is similar.

In another thread, 'Logos1560' made much of the 1611 KJB putting a comma after God:

William Tyndale in 1534, Miles Coverdale in 1535, and John Rogers in 1537 translated the last part of this verse as "righteousness that cometh of our God and Saviour Jesus Christ"....[numerous others snipped for brevity]....1982 NKJV, 1994 Majority Text Interlinear, and other English translations render it "righteousness of our God and Saviour [or Savior] Jesus Christ."

the 1611 edition of the KJV has a comma after God at 2 Peter 1:1 [God, and our Saviour Jesus Christ]

Coverdale 1535 Bible, there's a comma (absent in the above representation/list!):



1535 Coverdale Bible

 

[Squire Robertsson]

This thread is closed.

Six Hour Warning
This thread will be closed sometime after 9:30 PM Pacific.