My Thoughts on the KJV

[Conan]

"In light of the manifold criticisms of WH's opinions regarding the transmission of the text, it is astonishing that their text is so good still today. This is on the hand primarily due to the fact that their basic result, to follow B wherever possible, is not so bad as it is normally accepted today, and on the other hand, that their opinions regarding the textual history are, with some qualifications, probably also basically correct." Wieland Willker

Hort, Metzger, the Alands, and Wieland Willker way over rate Codex Vaticanus. Their theories don't work, unless you have a really, really great manuscript. They are making codex Vaticanus into that really, really great manuscript. But it has mistakes all throughout it's Text. A valuable manuscript. Glad that we have it. But it has flaws and errors and mistakes. It's not a really, really great manuscript. A good one. A valuable one. But not a really, really great one.

Just as KJVOnlyist idolize the KJV, so does Hort idolize codex Vaticanus.

 

[Logos1560]

Do TR-only advocates and KJV-only advocates in effect over rate Jerome's Latin Vulgate as a source superior in some cases to all or a great majority of preserved Greek NT manuscripts?

Do some even seem to suggest that God failed to preserve some of the same exact original-language words that He gave by inspiration to the prophets and apostles since they will defend readings followed in the KJV that are found in no known preserved Greek NT manuscripts?

 

[RipponRedeaux]

"The text produced by Westcott and Hort is still today, even with so many more manuscript discoveries, a very close reproduction of the primitive text of the New Testament...[T]he Westcott and Hort text is extremely reliable...Of course, the manuscript discoveries of the past one hundred years have changed things, but it is remarkable how often they have affirmed the decisions of Westcott and Hort." (Philip W. Comfort Encountering The Manuscripts : An Introduction To New Testament Paleography And Textual Criticism, (Nashville, 2005), p.100).

 

[37818]

https://www.prunch.com.br/wp-conten...n-the-Bread-of-Life-by-the-Hortian-Theory.pdf

 

[Mike Stidham]

What Bible I use is whatever's the closest at hand when I'm wanting to look up something. That said, I will always have some attachment to the KJV.
What I would really like to do is learn to read another language and THEN read the Scriptures in that language. (the choice right now is between Swedish which is my lineage or German just because)

 

[Piper]

Unfortunately, it is over 400 years old. People do not speak like that. The textual basis, at least in the NT, is inferior to those based on the Critical Text. The ESV is, in my opinion, a far superior translation of a far superior Greek Text. The TR is weak.

 

[Piper]

So you like the KJV because you’re comfortable with it.

I switch versions frequently so I don’t get comfortable with it.

Rob

Good choice. I use the UBS Greek to do my reading in the gospels, and find that getting used to one translation leads to a kind of complacency. I do not like paraphrases, or those styled as translations that are really loose like the NLT. The phrase "literal translation" is misleading to the average person on the street. It is more nuanced and complicated than that, and arguing it on a message board almost always gets people on vendettas to prove their "superior" view. I try to keep my answers short, and if someone really wants to study the issue, I will recommend books.

 

[RipponRedeaux]

I do not like paraphrases, or those styled as translations that are really loose like the NLT.

That's a mysterious word choice you have used :"those styled as translations."

The NLT is certainly a translation as much as the ESV or any other Bible version.

You have to tighten up your loose way of speaking/writing.

 

[Conan]

Unfortunately, it is over 400 years old. People do not speak like that. The textual basis, at least in the NT, is inferior to those based on the Critical Text. The ESV is, in my opinion, a far superior translation of a far superior Greek Text. The TR is weak.

The TR is only weak in a few places. The Critical Text has more weakness's than a TR. The Majority Text has even less.

 

[RipponRedeaux]

The Critical Text has more weakness's than a TR.

WOW. That is quite wrong. And the spelling is weaknesses; not weakness's.

Would you care to give a few examples of the TR (one of 30 or so) being superior in given passages versus the CT reading? Contrast in English.

 

[Conan]

WOW. That is quite wrong.

We should investigate this here.

And the spelling is weaknesses; not weakness's.

Thank you!

Would you care to give a few examples of the TR (one of 30 or so) being superior in given passages versus the CT reading? Contrast in English.

Yes tonight or this weekend. I would like to give some solid examples. Thank you for the opportunity. Anyone else is welcome to join as well.

 

[Piper]

That's a mysterious word choice you have used :"those styled as translations."

The NLT is certainly a translation as much as the ESV or any other Bible version.

You have to tighten up your loose way of speaking/writing.

I know exactly what I am saying. I spent years studying translation theory and textual transmission.

 

[RipponRedeaux]

I know exactly what I am saying. I spent years studying translation theory and textual transmission.

It is utter foolishness to state that the NLT isn't a translation. It's akin to saying that water isn't wet.

 

[Piper]

It is utter foolishness to state that the NLT isn't a translation. It's akin to saying that water isn't wet.

Calling someone a fool are the seeds of murder. -Jesus in Matthew 5 "and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ will be liable to the hell of fire."

 

[AVL1984]

I know exactly what I am saying. I spent years studying translation theory and textual transmission.

View attachment 7827

+
We used that same chart in our Ministry Development Certificate Program with the American Fellowship of Cowboy Churches. Many of the Cowboy churches associated with them use the NLT. Personally, I'm not that fond of it.

 

[RipponRedeaux]

I know exactly what I am saying.

You know exactly what you are saying; but what you're saying isn't true.

 

[RipponRedeaux]

View attachment 7827

That chart is messed up. It is most certainly not useful. First of all, the print is so tiny it's hard for me to make out some of the names of the translations.

The left side should be called the more form-oriented or something like that. The right side should be called the more functionally-equivalent.

Who reads the 1966 Jerusalem Bible these days? I like and use the 1985 NJB, which is not to be confused with the 2018 RNJB.

There is no mention of the ESV or CSB --not even the HCSB is cited.

The NLT is largely on the functionally equivalent side of the ledger next to the NCV.

Who in the world uses the old Living Bible of 1971? The NLT is substantially different from its predecessor.

Right in between the opposite sides of the chart should be the mediating translations. It was right to put the NIV there. And it has company in that turf : the NABRE, NET, CSB and NJB. The old MLB would occupy that territory also.

 

[RipponRedeaux]

AVL, since you find my posts funny, perhaps you should try to counter my claims in post #57 for starters.

 

[rsr]

That chart is messed up.

It at least appears to be outdated. Judging from the translations mentioned, it would be more than 20 years old. The ESV was published in 2001 and it appears nowhere, even though it's one of the top sellers. The TEV has not existed since 2001, when it was renamed the Good News Bible. Other major translations, like the Common English Bible and the Holman, also are not on the list. If the chart is indeed that old, the NLT referenced likely is the first edition, not the second, which would push it to the left on the chart.

 

[RipponRedeaux]

The NLT was first published in 1996 and subsequent editions updated the work in 2004, 2007, 2013 and 2015. That's a lot of revision from the 1996 edition.