New Covenant Baptist

[TCassidy]

1. The KJV is 100% accurate.

That would depend on what you mean by "accurate."

2. The NASB / ESV / NIV etc. are 100% accurate.

Again, that would depend on what you mean by "accurate."

3. None are 100% accurate, and only the missing autographs are infallible; therefore, God has not preserved His Word.

This would deny that God has preserved His word, when it is obvious He did because we still have it.

In other words, the KJV and the modern versions cannot all be right, because they contradict one another in numerous areas.

Where do the modern versions contradict one another, or contradict the KJV?

The only 4th logical possibility would be that God has confusingly decided to preserve His Word buffet-style in all of the modern translations combined and it is up to us to try to figure out which passages are correct in each of the numerous modern Bible translations that are available.

This may be the root of your problem. God did not preserve the English translation.

Inspiration = original manuscripts
Preservation = copies of manuscripts
Derivation = translation of the copies.

my understanding so far is that the underlying manuscripts surrounding the KJV were built upon the same Majority Text manuscripts & the TR as the previous English Bibles, like the Tyndale, Wycliff, Geneva, Bishop's Bible, etc. All of these were present during the KJV translation and the KJV built upon these, which is why all agree with one another in scope and content.

All of which are based on the TR of Erasmus, so, obviously, translation based on the same underlying text would be similar.

As such, there are real differences between these underlying manuscripts, such as the KJV saying that we "are saved" vs. the moderns saying we are "being saved", making salvation a process rather than an instant at the moment of genuine belief (1 Cor 15:2).

Note what it says,
1 Corinthians 15:2 "δι ου και σωζεσθε τινι λογω ευηγγελισαμην υμιν ει κατεχετε εκτος ει μη εικη επιστευσατε."

I draw your attention to that word σωζεσθε. It is a verb in the present passive indicative, second person plural.

The present tense indicates something that is a continuing action.

I will be the first to say that I don't like that way of translating σωζεσθε, the word for "saved." I think it should be translated more like an English "state of being" saved. (We who are in a "state of being" - saved!") But "being saved" is an accurate, correct translation of the Greek verb.

Btw: there were Jesuits sitting on the Nestle Aland committee which produced the underlying texts for the modern versions. That should be suspect in and of itself.

Erasmus, whose TR you champion, was a Roman Catholic Priest.

Also, Carlo M. Martini (1927–2012) was an Italian Jesuit, archbishop of Milan, and cardinal of the Catholic Church. He was the only Catholic member of the ecumenical committee that published the Novum Testamentum Graece.

Cardinal Martini was one of the greatest minds of the Catholic Church who constantly lobbied for change from the old ways the church handled things. He was the Chair of Textual Criticism at the Pontifical Biblical Institute.

He held a baccalaureate degree from the Istituto Sociale in Turin, Italy. He received his Masters in philosophy at the Jesuits' House of Studies in Gallarate, also in Milan, and a Masters in Theology at the Faculty of Theology in Chieri.

He received his Ph.D in Theology from the Pontifical Gregorian University, and a second Ph.D. in Scriptural Studies from the Pontifical Biblical Institute, graduating summa cum laude, with a thesis on the grouping of codices of the Gospel of Luke (in other words in Textual Criticism).

He was often the sole voice defending some of the traditional readings over the readings provided by Aleph and B.

 

[rsr]

Facts can be inconvenient things. Doc and I don't see eye to eye on the MT vs. the CT (and I admit that he has much, much more knowledge about such things than I) but I think we both resist anathematizing those who hold different views and agree that, whatever the exact text produced by each tradition, by and large those who hold to them are are sincere in wanting to have the most accurate text that humans, through God-given skills and talents, can provide.

In any case, if you want to go to the Translations forum you are welcome to participate in discussions about translations and texts.

I daresay that, when you pick up any of the mainstream translations, from whatever source, you will find the vital doctrines of the faith, the gospel, and God glorified.

 

[Afshin Yaghtin]

Interesting. Thank you. The most substantive seems to be 1 Cor 12:28 based on content. At general glance, the rest do not appear as substantive. Do you know why these changes were made between the 1611 and our current KJV? I am open to learning on this issue. Looking at 1 Cor 12:28 the 1611 appears to be more accurate. Are there any verses in the modern KJV that you believe are more accurate than the 1611? I'm trying to determine which is more accurate.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

This discussion needs to be taken the Translation\Version Forum. So, I'm closing this thread.