-
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!
Perfect VS Accurate
- Thread starter Askjo
- Start date
- Status
Do you mean English translation?
You would have to know all the languages of earth that have a translation of the original language scriptures to make that determination.
IMO, the New King James Bible is the most accurate English translation.
There is more than vocabulary, syntax and grammar to be considered.
There is the faithfulness of the copies of the originals to those original words. This is of necessity a faith decision.
Also to be considered is the fact that when God sent out His word it was in the common language contemporary with those to whom it was sent.
IMO, The New King James fulfills all those requirements to the best degree.
HankD
Neither. Unless one morphs the word perfect to a meaning little used (and NOT understood) today
Webster: Perfect =
1. Without defect or omission
2. Complete excellence
3. Completely correct and accurate
4. Pure; without qualification
5. Complete; needing nothing more
I would suppose #5 might qulaify, but even then it is based on poor Greek and so is radically different from the older, better Greek (and translations of that Greek)
And "accurate" would likewise be an ill-advised word to use, as language evolves (much of the AV WAS accurate to the poor Greek in Jacobean English; it is NOT accurate to the older Greek and to the present English - hence the need for newer, better translations)
I'd agree with Hank that the NEW KJV would be far more "complete/accurate", but even then based on inferior Eastern Orthodox Greek texts)
Webster: Perfect =
1. Without defect or omission
2. Complete excellence
3. Completely correct and accurate
4. Pure; without qualification
5. Complete; needing nothing more
I would suppose #5 might qulaify, but even then it is based on poor Greek and so is radically different from the older, better Greek (and translations of that Greek)
And "accurate" would likewise be an ill-advised word to use, as language evolves (much of the AV WAS accurate to the poor Greek in Jacobean English; it is NOT accurate to the older Greek and to the present English - hence the need for newer, better translations)
I'd agree with Hank that the NEW KJV would be far more "complete/accurate", but even then based on inferior Eastern Orthodox Greek texts)
Thinkingstuff
Active Member
Neither. Its a good translation. And its as accurate as it can be with the source material of the time.
Do you mean the KJV is a Spanish translation?
How could you say the NKJV is the most accurate translation by NOT deriving the TR almost 800 times?
Me too. While I enjoy the KJV, I don't claim it to be THE perfect translation.
If one claims that it's the only Perfect Word of God, then what happened to all those poor souls that died before 1611?
After all, "Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God" (Rom. 10:17), and "For by grace are ye saved through faith," (Eph 2:8), and "But without faith it is impossible to please him" (Heb. 11:6).
What word of God did those who lived and died before 1611 have upon which they could base their faith? Surely they must have had a word of God in their lifetimes. Don't we sort of put God in a box when we say that only the KJV is His Perfect Word?
So far, none of the KJVO advocates have ever explained to me why it took God all that time to give us His Perfect Word.
Could you show us any of these times where the NKJV "not deriving the TR almost 800 times"? I'm just curious, because nobody could do it before. (and Riplinger claims 1200 btw, but had 0 for her support)
First of all "TR" must be qualified as several codices are considered worthy to bear the title Textus Receptus (Received Text).
One must qualify as to the author: Stephanus, Elzevir brothers, Erasmus and several others of less notoriety.
Even among the more reknown authors there are several editions published over the years and must qualify by year as well e.g.
Stephanus 1551.
The only one that follows exactly after the KJV is Scrivener's 1894 edition which is a composite of those several authors above as the KJV itself follows none of them either but is a composite of the authors above.
So, IMO, if there are these 800 differences then they are variances within the several codices which bear the title Textus Receptus as opposed to the Critical Text based upon the Wescott and Hort enhancements (to one degree or another) with Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, Alexandrinus and a few other mss.
The jury has not come in as to whether the Alexandrian or Byzantine Text more accurately reflects the originals.
Personally, I feel its the Traditional Text (which is a Byzantine, Old Itala-Vulgate composite) others (such as Dr Bob) feel differently.
The sky is not falling over this issue as some believe.
Personally, I like the way the NIV reads over the NKJV.
On the other hand I appreciate the Traditional Text underlying the NKJV.
HankD
Another thing that has been "sticking in my craw" is that someone said there is an 85% difference between the CT and the TR (i.e.Scrivener 1884).
If you took every single misspelling, misplaced word, reversed words, homonym words, skipped words, ink blotched words between the hundreds and perhaps 1000's of the mss collation base that might be true.
However in the art of collation now made even more efficient with computer models, these scribal blunders are easily detected by scan comparisons of the entire base so that the actual number of places where there is a real and discernable difference beyond the obvious blunders is less than 5% (or there abouts).
What makes it appear worse than it actually is, is that the apparatus of some CT publications at the bottom of the page takes up so much room, but that is because it gives the list of variants and (some/many/most) of the variant witnesses.
Also, what many people (usually the loudest complainers) don't know unless they have actually dealt with a Critical Text like the Nestle-Aland, is that the entirety of the Traditional Text is present in one place or another, either in the body of text with notation, the margin or in the critical apparatus (list or mss variants) at the bottom of the page.
In fact, in my Nestle-Aland even 1 John 5:7 is included in its entirety in the apparatus in both Greek and Latin.
So, even most CT's will give you the entirety of the Traditional Text.
Yes, it takes a bit of study and diligence to learn how to use the apparatus if you wanted to reconstruct the Traditional Text.
Some even have a grading system by the author(s) to suggest the probablity of the variant. You don't have to accept it.
Yes, there are some real and signicant differences between the "CT" and the "TR" but its not anywhere near 85%. Each variant is documented.
So, if you took all the raw mss and did the comparison by every sentence and every word, maybe 85% (even that is dubious IMO).
The resultant CT collation is a distilation (as is any TR) of a base of manuscripts with the obvious scribal blunders repaired. The greater the base, the better.
The Traditional Texts don't contain any clearly isolated Alexandrian mss variant readings (except where TCassidy pointed out those apparently included in the KJV as well) this is, for the most part, the less than 5% difference (IMO) with the CT.
HankD
If you took every single misspelling, misplaced word, reversed words, homonym words, skipped words, ink blotched words between the hundreds and perhaps 1000's of the mss collation base that might be true.
However in the art of collation now made even more efficient with computer models, these scribal blunders are easily detected by scan comparisons of the entire base so that the actual number of places where there is a real and discernable difference beyond the obvious blunders is less than 5% (or there abouts).
What makes it appear worse than it actually is, is that the apparatus of some CT publications at the bottom of the page takes up so much room, but that is because it gives the list of variants and (some/many/most) of the variant witnesses.
Also, what many people (usually the loudest complainers) don't know unless they have actually dealt with a Critical Text like the Nestle-Aland, is that the entirety of the Traditional Text is present in one place or another, either in the body of text with notation, the margin or in the critical apparatus (list or mss variants) at the bottom of the page.
In fact, in my Nestle-Aland even 1 John 5:7 is included in its entirety in the apparatus in both Greek and Latin.
So, even most CT's will give you the entirety of the Traditional Text.
Yes, it takes a bit of study and diligence to learn how to use the apparatus if you wanted to reconstruct the Traditional Text.
Some even have a grading system by the author(s) to suggest the probablity of the variant. You don't have to accept it.
Yes, there are some real and signicant differences between the "CT" and the "TR" but its not anywhere near 85%. Each variant is documented.
So, if you took all the raw mss and did the comparison by every sentence and every word, maybe 85% (even that is dubious IMO).
The resultant CT collation is a distilation (as is any TR) of a base of manuscripts with the obvious scribal blunders repaired. The greater the base, the better.
The Traditional Texts don't contain any clearly isolated Alexandrian mss variant readings (except where TCassidy pointed out those apparently included in the KJV as well) this is, for the most part, the less than 5% difference (IMO) with the CT.
HankD
Last edited:
Hank, I said the Received and Critical Texts are 85% similar, not different, maybe you misunderstood. And I do not know this for a fact, this is what I have read in various articles. It is certain that they are not 100% in agreement.
Now, you may not understand this, but being 95% reliable is not good enough for me. I believe Jesus to be the very Word of God.
Rev 19:13 And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.
John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
Now, I do not pretend to understand how the Word of God became flesh, but that is what the scriptures say and I believe it.
So, the scriptures to me are a direct representation of Jesus Christ himself. Therefore they must be perfect, and without error. And so I must believe that God has preserved His Word and that somewhere out there is His perfect Word.
I believe this completely on faith, not scholarship. Oh, I've studied books like many here on how our modern scriptures came to be. It is wearisome. For every scholarly work that supports the RT and the KJB, you can find a scholarly work supporting the CT and the MVs. I realized many years ago that a person will never know the answer through scholarship.
I do know this though, God himself promised to preserve his pure word to all generations and for ever.
Psa 12:6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.
So, I had to look around and compare all the various versions of scripture. Through study, I came to believe that the KJB is the preserved and pure word of God in the English language. I do believe that a person could faithfully translate the RT into other languages and that would be the pure Word of God in that language. So, I am not extreme like Ruckman who thinks that only the English is God's Word.
Now, don't ask me to explain how God preserved his word, I can't. I just believe by faith that he did because he promised to do so.
Oh, and you will love this article I posted on another thread.
http://rosetta.reltech.org/TC/vol06/Robinson2001.html
Now, you may not understand this, but being 95% reliable is not good enough for me. I believe Jesus to be the very Word of God.
Rev 19:13 And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.
John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
Now, I do not pretend to understand how the Word of God became flesh, but that is what the scriptures say and I believe it.
So, the scriptures to me are a direct representation of Jesus Christ himself. Therefore they must be perfect, and without error. And so I must believe that God has preserved His Word and that somewhere out there is His perfect Word.
I believe this completely on faith, not scholarship. Oh, I've studied books like many here on how our modern scriptures came to be. It is wearisome. For every scholarly work that supports the RT and the KJB, you can find a scholarly work supporting the CT and the MVs. I realized many years ago that a person will never know the answer through scholarship.
I do know this though, God himself promised to preserve his pure word to all generations and for ever.
Psa 12:6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.
So, I had to look around and compare all the various versions of scripture. Through study, I came to believe that the KJB is the preserved and pure word of God in the English language. I do believe that a person could faithfully translate the RT into other languages and that would be the pure Word of God in that language. So, I am not extreme like Ruckman who thinks that only the English is God's Word.
Now, don't ask me to explain how God preserved his word, I can't. I just believe by faith that he did because he promised to do so.
Oh, and you will love this article I posted on another thread.
http://rosetta.reltech.org/TC/vol06/Robinson2001.html
Last edited by a moderator:
That is pure error. The scriptures say God has magnified his Word above even his very name.
Psa 138:2 I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name.
And that is the problem I see here, many do not have any respect for God's Word. Oh, they say they believe in God, but they cannot believe that he would preserve his pure word as he promised to do.
When you finally realize that Jesus IS the Word of God, your thinking will change.
Psa 56:10 In God will I praise his word: in the LORD will I praise his word.
Saying God's Word is full of error is hardly praising it. Whether you realize it or not, when you say God's Word is full of error, you are saying Jesus is full of error.
Last edited by a moderator:
What a horrible misapplication and twisting of the Scriptures. That's all I am going to say.
Trotter
<img src =/6412.jpg>
Winman said:
Here's the rub. "I... I... I..." Nowhere in these statements is "God... God... God..." or "scripture... scripture... scripture..." And yet you and stilllearning (as well some KJVO cronies) continue to bash anything that is not the KJV. Even if a translation uses the TR it is not good enough because it does not measure up to your Nehushtan.
Frankly, I have had enough of it. Especially when you, stilllearning, or whoever try to throw out the KJVO proof texts and twist God's very word to try to support the lunacy you all are posting. You have a personal belief that a specific translation is perfect, and you have the personal right to be as delusional as you want... but when you start AND CONTINUE to push that ludicrous notion on everyone else along with condemning and maligning the very word of God you claim to hold in so high of regard it is just too much.
Winman said:
Pot, meet Kettle.
You have the sheer audacity to claim that we do not respect God's word... and yet you stand and cast stones at any translation other than your idol. Not only do you insult and degrade translations, you continue on and malign any manuscripts that were not used in the manufacture of your Nehushtan. Can you not see the hypocrisy pouring from your stance. No, I figure you are completely blind to it else you would not continue with the same line of bovine excrement over and over and over.
English is not a dead language. It is alive and well and ever changing. New words come into existence, old words drop into disuse. Meanings change over time. Even grammar and syntax have evolved and continue to do so. But you and a select few would have all of Chistiandom, nay all the English speaking world, jettison a all of the language changes between 1611 (or whatever revision you happen to use) and now and bow down before your man-made idol and worship it just like you do. Sorry, but that's not about to happen.
God does preserve His word and has done so since the very beginning. English wasn't a part of that in the beginning, and it is not a part of that now. English is a fairly recent language in the scheme of things. Our translations are merely attempts to port God's word from its original languages into our own. They are not a part of preserving God's word. God's word will continue without a hitch even if English, both spoken and written, were to vanish from the globe.
You have followed, knowingly or unknowingly, in the very footsteps of ignorant men who have tried to create their own god out of a translation. And you continue to persist in this very thing. The very inanity of this is enough to drive a person mad. Maybe God doesn't shed tears over this abomination against Hid word, but I have shed many. How many have died and ended up in hell because someone would rather condemn them for not picking up a KJV? How many have walked away from God or church involvement because of this doctrine of the devil? I know quite a few. And you continue in this very thing.
None of the manuscripts are in 100% agreement.
What do you mean by 95% reliable?
The Bible didn't become flesh, Jesus Christ became flesh. Jesus Christ is the "Word" that is in John 1.
Yes, the Scriptures are perfect and without error. I would agree 100%. And yes they are preserved. But to say that there is a specific copy that is 100% without error is not supported by Scripture.
* The words are God breathed (2 Timothy 3:16, 2 Peter 1:21)
* The words will be preserved (Isaiah 40:8, Matthew 24:35)
* The words are truth and inerrant (John 17:17, Psalms 119:151,160)
I do know this though, God himself promised to preserve his pure word to all generations and for ever.
Psa 12:6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.
So, I had to look around and compare all the various versions of scripture. Through study, I came to believe that the KJB is the preserved and pure word of God in the English language. I do believe that a person could faithfully translate the RT into other languages and that would be the pure Word of God in that language. So, I am not extreme like Ruckman who thinks that only the English is God's Word.
Now, don't ask me to explain how God preserved his word, I can't. I just believe by faith that he did because he promised to do so.
[/QUOTE]
You say that, but then you say how God preserved it. You say that God only preserved it in a text that didn't come about till the 1500's(for starters and finished in the 1884) How is saying the received text( a text that came about in the 1500's and has had many changes to it) is this perfect Word of God done by faith? Faith in what? The Bible never said it. The Bible never said that a specific copy would be perfect. If so, we would need to show from the original writing till now a line of perfection.
Last edited by a moderator:
What kind of statement is that? Don't you believe the scriptures are the Word of God? If so, they are a representation of Jesus Christ himself.
You can not seperate Jesus from the Word of God. They are the same. Jesus created the universe by merely speaking His Word.
You see, I have a completely different viewpoint from you. You believe the scriptures are just ink on paper written by fallible men, so of course they have errors.
But I believe that one version has to be the preserved and pure Word of God. It has to be perfect and without error, because it represents Jesus himself who is perfect and without error.
And you aren't going to prove this with scholarship. You can spend your entire life studying this and you will not get anywhere, because you are trying to comprehend and apprehend the spiritual through natural means.
No, it will always come down to faith. You must simply believe that God kept his word that he would preserve his pure and perfect Word.
Now, if you want to argue which version is that pure and perfect Word, you have an issue. I believe it is the KJB in English, and those texts the KJB translators used to translate it.
But I have never seen a MV commit to any version. They talk out of both sides of their mouth. They will insist that God preserved his word, and then say all versions contain error. I wouldn't call that preservation. Maybe you would.
And then if you ask them which version is that pure and preserved Word, they say they ALL are. This is ridiculous and absolutely illogical because they are all different.
- Status