-
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!
Question for KJV Fans
- Thread starter InTheLight
- Start date
I would suggest you ask Nestley Aland. They are responsible for saying westscott and Horts text was discredited. They also claim that despite this discrediting it is most Valuable. Have you ever read the introduction to the text. If so you'd have to agree with me.
None are so blind as those who just will not see.
I have a question for you. In the OP you stated this:
I could understand that statement if you were a new Christian or something, and just picked up a KJV to start reading it, but, I'm wondering why, if you've used and memorized the KJV of the Bible your whole life, you're having trouble understanding it NOW, after all this time? Something's funny about that to me.
BTW, your signature line looks to be from the NKJV.
Are you already using that version, because it was one I was going to suggest to you.
I could understand that statement if you were a new Christian or something, and just picked up a KJV to start reading it, but, I'm wondering why, if you've used and memorized the KJV of the Bible your whole life, you're having trouble understanding it NOW, after all this time? Something's funny about that to me.
BTW, your signature line looks to be from the NKJV.
Are you already using that version, because it was one I was going to suggest to you.
Last edited by a moderator:
I use the KJV. I don't fault people for using other translations. Use what you want, I could care less.
I don't use the KJV because of the underlying Greek texts, or because of the books written to support it, or any of that. I use it because I think it is superior. People argue about which Greek texts better represent the originals, and that is an incredibly unfruitful argument. There is no solution since noone has ever seen an original copy of scripture. A lot of people who support the KJV try to use the TR and the MT to defend the translation and discredit the modern english translations, but they always fall short because they are using a flawed argument. Many who argue against the KJV try to use the argument that since the critical texts are older they better represent the originals, but they fail because that argument is flawed. Nobody knows what the originals said because noone alive today has seen an original copy. If you believe the bible you hold in your hands is an accurate rendering of the original text, you must do so based on faith.
I don't use the KJV because of the underlying Greek texts, or because of the books written to support it, or any of that. I use it because I think it is superior. People argue about which Greek texts better represent the originals, and that is an incredibly unfruitful argument. There is no solution since noone has ever seen an original copy of scripture. A lot of people who support the KJV try to use the TR and the MT to defend the translation and discredit the modern english translations, but they always fall short because they are using a flawed argument. Many who argue against the KJV try to use the argument that since the critical texts are older they better represent the originals, but they fail because that argument is flawed. Nobody knows what the originals said because noone alive today has seen an original copy. If you believe the bible you hold in your hands is an accurate rendering of the original text, you must do so based on faith.
I did some more googling last night. I hope the following answers your question.
Those in the Textus Receptus camp say the Alexandrian text is corrupt because of omissions and changes in the Alexandrian manuscripts--both intentional and unintentional text omissions and text changes caused by the scribes or monks who copied the manuscripts during the dark ages. Thus, the footnotes in Bibles that list the verse as corrupt in the Alexandrian text--refer to intentional and unintentional text omissions and text changes in the Alexandrian manuscripts.
This article summarizes the types of textual variations: Causes of Textual Variation. These come from the Metzger book I suggested earlier in the thread. I know you do not want to read Metzger because he draws conclusions that do not support the Textus Receptus; however, Metzger did present the issue in a scholarly fashion.
Here is another webpage from the same website that lists several textual criticism articles from both sides of the issue.
For the record, I am not KJBO. I am just trying to help a new guy find an answer to his question.
...Bob
Last edited by a moderator:
I do understand it, but I'm tired of the thees, thous, ye, and -eth at the end of words. What's the point of reading 400 year old english? Also, I've got a couple of kids and I'd like them to be able to read and understand it without having to consult a dictionary.
As for having trouble understanding it, this is the sort of thing I'm talking about. Try these on for size:
Heb 7:18 For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof. [KJV]
Heb 7:18 The former regulation is set aside because it was weak and useless [NIV]
John 4:33 Therefore said the disciples one to another, Hath any man brought him ought to eat? [KJV]
John 4:33 Then his disciples said to each other, “Could someone have brought him food?” [NIV]
Which is easier to understand?
It is. I have a couple of NKJVs that I like to read since I'm used to the cadence of the KJV but the NKJV does away with the thees, thous, -eths, etc.
Like this?:
1 Corinthians 5:3 For I verily, as absent in body, but present in spirit, have judged already, as though I were present, concerning him that hath so done this deed, [KJV]
3 For my part, even though I am not physically present, I am with you in spirit. As one who is present with you in this way, I have already passed judgment in the name of our Lord Jesus on the one who has been doing this. [NIV]
(That verse in the KJV is a stuttering, staccato rendition. Try reading it aloud.)
Luke 14:10: But when thou art bidden, go and sit down in the lowest room; that when he that bade thee cometh, he may say unto thee, Friend, go up higher: then shalt thou have worship in the presence of them that sit at meat with thee. [KJV]
10 But when you are invited, take the lowest place, so that when your host comes, he will say to you, ‘Friend, move up to a better place.’ Then you will be honored in the presence of all the other guests. [NIV]
(Again, read these verses aloud to get the full effect.)
Which documents are likely to be more accurate to their originals? Manuscripts that have been copied thousands of times or a manuscript that was recently discovered in the 1800's?
Sir, respectfully, I don't think you're being honest. I have doubt that you have used a KJV since childhood. You seem to be all about pointing out what, in your opinion, are it's hard to understand verses. I've also used the KJV since childhood, and although I agree that someone new to that version might have to take the time to understand what a verse says, anyone using it for their entire life, as you claim to have done, has long ago grown accustomed to the "wording" of the KJV and understand it completely. I had ZERO trouble understanding the verses you posted. I think you're trolling, to be honest.
In other words, you made this thread to argue against the KJV under the guise of asking about the KJV. I'm not going to argue against your preference for something other than the KJV. If you wish you use something else, go ahead, I could care less. I'm not going to get into an argument on this. I didn't come on here to convince you to use the KJ.
Concerning your last part, you did nothing more than prove my point. You say the oldest must surely be more accurate than a newer copy. How do you know that? How can you prove that? You can't. All you are stating is a possibility based on a theory. You don't have an original copy or an eyewitness of the original copy to compare. It is possible that you are correct but it is also possible that the older copies are less accurate than the so-called MT. Just that possibility, without the necessary evidence to render an absolute verdict, shows the fallacy of such an argument. This is why these arguments never solve anything. There is no way to prove either line of manuscripts are closer to the original copies. Again, if you believe you have a faithful rendering in your hands, you must do so by faith.
Sure, I know 'prevent' in the KJV means 'precede' in today's english. 'Conversation' means 'lifestyle'; 'peculiar people' means 'special people', etc. but those verses I posted I did not understand when I ran across them in my Bible reading over the past few years. That's what prompted me to look into the entire KJV vs. new translations arguments.
Of those verses I posted, which is easier to understand?
Also, now that I have kids I just can't see requiring them to learn 400 year old English idioms in order to understand the Bible. In short, I'm making the switchover and I wonder why others don't do so as well. I'm not trolling.
That's fine, but you could have just switched without all the negative comments about the KJV.
ALL the negative comments? I have said it contains 'misleading olde english phraseology'. That's the only thing I've said about it that can be vaguely considered negative. Is that a false statement?
So what version(s) are you switching to?
I use three:
NIV 1984
NRSV
KJB
I read them in that order. I carry to church whatever the preacher and Sunday School teacher use. Right now, that is the NIV 1984.
. . .
BYW, what were all those questions about the corrupt text, when you are switching because of the KJB English difficulty?
Most people in this forum are here to help. True, some are here to argue (er, discuss). But most people will help if you ask the right question.
Anyway, I hope you and your family will be happy with the change of versions.
...Bob
My church uses the KJV so that's what I bring to church with me. Also, if I'm looking for a particular passage since I'm so familiar with my 40 year old KJV, I will usually grab that to find certain topics or verses. I simply know where they are because I can recognize the text so easily.
For reading large segments, i.e. daily reading, I'm using the NIV Study Bible. I guess it is the 1984 edition. It was purchased in 2004 or thereabouts.
It has been my experience that when you tell some Christians that you are no longer using the KJV for your primary reading Bible the issue of modern translations and "missing verses or missing words" comes up.
When I point out that the source manuscripts are different and depending on your point of view perhaps the KJV has added verses. (Also, there are verses and words in the modern translations that are "missing" in the KJV.)
The argument always comes down to "the Alexandrian texts are corrupt." I've never heard a compelling argument for this stance and thought someone here could give it.
Now, I think I understand your question.
Many boards like Baptist Board just have no interest in discussing the issue. Or rather, I should say they are tired of discussing the issue.
I suggest you go to some KJVO sites that have forum topics on New Versions. You can start your own thread and I am sure the moderators and KJVO gang will give you plenty to read. Whether the argument is compelling--you will have to decide that for yourself.
Baptist 1611 / New Versions is a KJVO website that I visit from time to time to learn about the KJVO position. If you go there, I suggest you introduce yourself and explain that you want to learn why the Alexandrian manuscripts are corrupt.
Be up front and honest about the reason you have come to their website. As long as you keep the discussion in the learning mode you can avoid the stinging comments. And when the KJVO folks give you their explanation, be sure to thank them for their time.
Some KJVO folks no longer concern themselves with the underlying original language manuscripts. They maintain the KJV is divinely inspired, leapfrogging the original manuscripts. Therefore, with these folks you may not find much discussion about the corrupted text in the Alexandrian manuscripts. It just doesn't matter to them, because they now hold the position the KJV is God's Word, not the underlying manuscripts.
If you do go to the KJVO websites, please bear in mind they have been the target of 150 years of scholar research and $billions in publisher marketing campaigns. They will defend their position, as to be expected.
...Bob
What if your children were studying the works of Shakespeare. I find the objection of using a dictionary to build your children's vocabulary rather redicoulous. I've used dictionaries ever since I first learned to read. I find them invaluable for understanding what the NIV says as well. When I was in kindergarten I knew the meaning of thee's and thous. I also have a grandson ( 9 years old ) who has no problem with the KJV
I have no problem with it. not one of these words are obsolete we still use every one of them.
A commandment from God is much greater than civil law not to mention that commandments are part of an agreed contract or dispensation.
What bothers me is the NIV says something much different than the KJV.
The KJV says the disciples asked if anyone brought him any food. The NIV says " Could someone have brought him food? "
I understand both and recognize the NIV says something different though similar. I don't see what your difficulty is. The question you need to ask your self is are you willing to give up accuracy for what you consider easy?
The NKJV is not a revision of the KJV. In truth those who own the NKJV stole the name of the KJV to back up there new Bible version, and sell more Bibles using the KJV name.
MB
NaasPreacher (C4K)
Well-Known Member
How can you steal something in the public domain?
The New King James is unique in that it was translation from the same body of manuscripts as the KJV using the same method of translation. It is a whole new translation indeed, but it is done as the KJV would have been done in the 1980s.
You do your brethren a disservice when you accuse them of using the KJV name only for monetary gain.
No, the KJV says, "Hath any man brought him ought to eat". Whereupon you have to go through the linguistic gymnastics to update that phrase to modern english. “Has anyone brought Him anything to eat?” (which by the way, is the exact wording of the NKJV.)
The NIV says the same thing. Jesus says that he has food to eat that the disciples don't know about. "Could someone have brought him food?" (i.e. food they don't know about.)
OK, which is more accurate?
Isa. 45:7
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things. [KJV]
I form the light and create darkness,
I bring prosperity and create disaster;
I, the LORD, do all these things. [NIV]
KJV says God creates evil. NIV more accurately translates the word as disaster. (NJKV uses calamity.)
Deut. 8:9--KJV says you can mine brass. Brass is a man-made alloy of copper and zinc and does not occur naturally.
9 A land wherein thou shalt eat bread without scarceness, thou shalt not lack any thing in it; a land whose stones are iron, and out of whose hills thou mayest dig brass. [KJV]
9 a land where bread will not be scarce and you will lack nothing; a land where the rocks are iron and you can dig copper out of the hills. [NIV]