Question for KJV Fans

[InTheLight]

I grew up with the KJV. My memory verses are KJV. Lately though, I'm finding I tire of all the thees and thous as well as the archaic, often misleading olde english phraseology. I find myself consulting the NIV more and more for understanding what the text is saying.

In my studies of translations the argument comes down to the choice of source manuscripts. Either the Textus Receptus or the so-called Critical Text. Eventually the argument employed by adherents of the TR is that the Critical Text (sometimes called the Alexandrian Texts) are "corrupt" or they are "flawed."

Question: Why are these texts "corrupt"?

(Please don't make a list of verses or parts of verses that are in the KJV and not in the modern translations. That only shows there is a difference in the manuscripts which I already know.)

 

[annsni]

Well, I'm not a KJV "fan" (I'm thinking you're thinking of more of the KJVO camp) but I do use the KJV and have high regard for it and think it's an awesome translation, if a bit dated in it's language. But I'd say the answer to the question really comes down to "because it doesn't fully agree with the KJV". Oftentimes we see the KJV being the measuring stick and I think there is a large flaw in that sort of thinking.

 

[BobinKy]

Here is a webpage The Significance of the Scribal Corruptions to the New Testament Text that may shed some light on your question.

Most people do not understand what is meant by the phrase "corrupted text." However, this is a pretty big issue and has been around for some time. Google and you should find lots of stuff. The seminary guys who hang out here can also tell you about the issue, as they probably have studied it in several courses. The key, in my opinion, is to study the issue without bias toward either the KJB or the modern versions.

Really good question to ask!

By the way, please send me a personal message if you have an interest in astronomy or moon exploration (as your avatar might suggest)?

...Bob

 

[InTheLight]

Well, I'm not a KJV "fan" (I'm thinking you're thinking of more of the KJVO camp) but I do use the KJV and have high regard for it and think it's an awesome translation, if a bit dated in it's language. But I'd say the answer to the question really comes down to "because it doesn't fully agree with the KJV". Oftentimes we see the KJV being the measuring stick and I think there is a large flaw in that sort of thinking.

I still read my KJV. It was translated into the common english of the day and I think it was a great translation for its day.

Modern translations strive to do put the Bible in the common english in use today and I think they succeed.

Typically the knock used by KJVO people is that the Critical Text is corrupt.

"Why is it corrupt? "

"Because it is."

"Why?"

"It just is..."

 

[InTheLight]

Here is a webpage The Significance of the Scribal Corruptions to the New Testament Text that may shed some light on your question.

Thanks for the link. I don't have time to check it out right now, but I sure will.

 

[annsni]

I still read my KJV. It was translated into the common english of the day and I think it was a great translation for its day.

Modern translations strive to do put the Bible in the common english in use today and I think they succeed.

Typically the knock used by KJVO people is that the Critical Text is corrupt.

"Why is it corrupt? "

"Because it is."

"Why?"

"It just is..."

LOL - Yep.

 

[InTheLight]

Here is a webpage The Significance of the Scribal Corruptions to the New Testament Text that may shed some light on your question.

That article was mostly about scribes when copying the text would intentionally alter certain passages in Mark so they would harmonize with parallel passages in other gospels (i.e. Matthew.) Or they would insert their own interpretation into the text.

Since the TR is the manuscript most copied throughout the church era and the Critical Text is older than the TR and less frequently copied, my only conclusion is that the TR would be more prone to the corruption stated in this article.

 

[BobinKy]

Here is a book some think is the definitive book on the subject: The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration (Bruce, M. Metzger, 4th Ed., 2005). 31 reviews at Amazon.

...Bob

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

I am a big fan of the KJV, but it is not my exclusive translation.

I prefer the traditional text body because the critical texts were off the scene for so long. To rely on them to me means that we spent 1200 years without accurate texts to translate from.

Do I consider them corrupt? No.
Do I consider the traditional texts superior? Yes.

 

[InTheLight]

I am a big fan of the KJV, but it is not my exclusive translation.

I prefer the traditional text body because the critical texts were off the scene for so long. To rely on them to me means that we spent 1200 years without accurate texts to translate from.

Do I consider them corrupt? No.
Do I consider the traditional texts superior? Yes.

As I understand it the critical texts were in storage for centuries and not in use. Also, the critical texts are older texts written more closely to the time of Christ. This means the TR texts are younger and were copied more often, meaning the possibility of copyist errors.

With these facts in mind, why do you consider the traditional texts superior?

 

[glfredrick]

I still read my KJV. It was translated into the common english of the day and I think it was a great translation for its day.

Modern translations strive to do put the Bible in the common english in use today and I think they succeed.

Typically the knock used by KJVO people is that the Critical Text is corrupt.

"Why is it corrupt? "

"Because it is."

"Why?"

"It just is..."

Or, the possibility exists that their preferred text (TR or RT) is corrupted and they are reading "scribal insertions as Scripture in areas where the earliest texts do not support some readings.

 

[InTheLight]

Here is a book some think is the definitive book on the subject: The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration (Bruce, M. Metzger, 4th Ed., 2005). 31 reviews at Amazon.

...Bob

According to customer comments, the author, Bruce Metzger, is a known critic of the Textus Receptus. I don't think I'll find the answer to my question in this book!

 

[InTheLight]

Or, the possibility exists that their preferred text (TR or RT) is corrupted and they are reading "scribal insertions as Scripture in areas where the earliest texts do not support some readings.

Well, yes, the manuscripts are different.

Here's an interesting example between the KJV and NKJV, which use the same text, that illustrates the KJV translators insertion of words (emphasis mine):

Matt 24:24For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect. [KJV]

24:24 For false christs and false prophets will rise and show great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect. [NKJV]


But I don't want to get sidetracked. I'm interested in hearing from people that can explain why they believe the Alexandrian texts are corrupted.

 

[glfredrick]

According to customer comments, the author, Bruce Metzger, is a known critic of the Textus Receptus. I don't think I'll find the answer to my question in this book!

There are good reasons to be critical of the TR, hence Metzger's criticism.

 

[Rippon]

It was translated into the common english of the day and I think it was a great translation for its day.

Although the people of 1611 had less difficulty with the language of the 1611 version -- the KJV used a somewhat dated style for even the early 17th century. William Tyndale's New Testament,for the most part, reads much better than does the 1769 Blayney edition. Mr.Tyndale put his translation in the common tongue. He didn't use fancy-dancy language when straight-forward English was quite serviceable. The KJV used too many Latinate expressions.

 

[Rippon]

I prefer the traditional text body because the critical texts were off the scene for so long. To rely on them to me means that we spent 1200 years without accurate texts to translate from.

Please explain. Why do you say that the critical texts were off the scene for so long?

 

[Jim1999]

The question I have proposed before and will again: Where were all the fancy translations when we were fighting liberalism? Where were they when we were defending the faith from 1925-1960's?

The KJV served us very well in those years.

I have nothing against any translation. They all have something to offer, but I still prefer my KJV. I preach from it, and teach from it, and will continue to do so to my dying day.

So, don't die on my watch, cos, I will bury your body by it.. (smile)

Cheers,

Jim

 

[MB]

I grew up with the KJV. My memory verses are KJV. Lately though, I'm finding I tire of all the thees and thous as well as the archaic, often misleading olde english phraseology. I find myself consulting the NIV more and more for understanding what the text is saying.

In my studies of translations the argument comes down to the choice of source manuscripts. Either the Textus Receptus or the so-called Critical Text. Eventually the argument employed by adherents of the TR is that the Critical Text (sometimes called the Alexandrian Texts) are "corrupt" or they are "flawed."

Question: Why are these texts "corrupt"?

The Bible says "a little leaven leavens the whole lump" The NA-27 or the critical text as you called it. Is taken from a biblical text that has been discredited. The NA-27 admits this in it's introduction. The Westscott and Horts translation of the Alexandrian text the main text used for it's translation. Both were found to be unreliable. Thus the reason for the tools used to translate it called a the critical apparatus. I use the KJV almost exclusively although I also use the NASB and the NIV on occasion.
I'm not an expert on it but I do have a copy of the NA-27 and have read the introduction from an english section in the front of it. I've read many arguments for the Bibles from the NA-27 and none of them were friendly at all. If you use the KJV exclusively you will be labled a Bible worshiper.

(Please don't make a list of verses or parts of verses that are in the KJV and not in the modern translations. That only shows there is a difference in the manuscripts which I already know.)

If you know the difference and realize that there should be no difference then you have no one to blame but your self.

If perhaps you don't believe what I said about this you can always go to a library and look at a NA-27 your self. You will also see in the introduction that the Pope of the Catholic Church had to approve it before it went to press.
MB

 

[Alcott]

"KJV fans?" I still have an old KJV, but I think the pages are too small to make very effective fans with.

 

[InTheLight]

The Bible says "a little leaven leavens the whole lump" The NA-27 or the critical text as you called it. Is taken from a biblical text that has been discredited.

The NA-27 admits this in it's introduction. The Westscott and Horts translation of the Alexandrian text the main text used for it's translation. Both were found to be unreliable.

I'm not an expert on it but I do have a copy of the NA-27 and have read the introduction from an english section in the front of it. I've read many arguments for the Bibles from the NA-27 and none of them were friendly at all.

Ah yes, the classic response.

"Why is it corrupt? "

"Because it is."

"Why?"

"It just is..."

So I ask again, WHY are the Alexandrian Texts considered corrupt?