Featured The KJV Translators Superior Language Skills

With all due respect, it is you who has refused to answer my question regarding what criteria you use to establish the KJV or the TR (whichever one) as the base line of complete perfection?

All commonly used English translations are complete. And I can point to my KJV and say "Thus saith the Lord."

And I can point to my NKJV and say "Thus saith the Lord."

And I can point to my WEB and say "Thus saith the Lord."

And I can point to my EMTV and say "Thus saith the Lord."

Yes, let's. What is your criteria for establishing the TR or the KJV as the base text?

 

So you have no reason the KJV or the TR is the base text for the word of God?

I can't tell you what bible to use. You will have to make that decision yourself. But I can suggest some criteria to use to help you in that decision.

1. Antiquity - The age of the actual manuscript. This is not a conclusive text for a 14th century mss may be an accurate copy of a 3rd century mss, whereas a 6th century mss may be a poor copy of a 3rd century mss.

2. Consent - The number of other witnesses. Normal practice is to accept the word of the majority of witnesses against the different readings of a few, especially when those few do not agree with each other.

3. Variety - The universality of evidence. Manuscripts supporting a certain reading should come from a variety of geographical locations and be attested to by a variety of other mss, lectionaries, versions, and Patristics.

4. Respectability - The reliability of the witness. Manuscripts which habitually contain errors are poor witnesses.

5. Continuity - The unbroken tradition of a witness. Have the readings/mss in question been widely accepted by churches over a wide spectrum of time?

6. Context - The evidence of the whole passage. The nature of the text surrounding a questioned reading can cast much light on the issue. If the reading is surrounded by obvious errors, it is much less likely to be a true reading.

7. Reasonableness - The internal credibility of the text. If a text contains grammatical absurdities, or obvious geographical, scientific, or biblical errors, the reading is not likely to be reliable.

8. Geography. The area of origin of the manuscript. Did the manuscript originate in a geographic location to which books of the New Testament were addressed? A geographic location where the autographs may have existed for as much as several hundred years to which early copies could be compared with and corrected from.

 

Again, your answer begs the very question you continue to refuse to answer. By what criteria do you establish the KJV as the base text?

What criteria do you use to establish the base text? How do you know God said them? How do you know that by throwing away (figuratively) the later translations you are not throwing away the word of God?

 

I have. The Greek Text According to the Byzantine Textform edited by Robinson and Pierpont.

None of the above.

But again I ask you, Which revision of the TR? There are 33 of them, all different.

We already have more than one so that ship has sailed.

I agree. And we have arrived at several very good ones.

1. The KV is a very good translation of a very good underlying textform and is thus an excellent, venerable old Bible.

2. The EMTV is a very good translation of a good underlying textform.

3. The WEB is a very good translation of a good underlying textform.

4. The NKJV is a very good translation of a good underlying textform.

Probably because you continue to refuse to answer my very simple question. By what criteria do you establish the KJV/TR as the base text?

 

So you have no reason to believe the KJV/TR is the word of God?

Just as, before the KJV, they pointed to the Bishops' Bible, and before that the Great Bible and before that the Cranmer Bible, and before that the Geneva Bible and before that the Tyndale Bible and said the same thing. Were they wrong? Did God leave them without the word of God until the KJV came along? Why would God do that?

Why would you suggest such a falsehood? I have a standard and have posted the criteria by which I established that standard, which you continue to refuse to do.

I have already posted my standard, The Greek Text According to the Byzantine Textform edited by Robinson and Pierpont.,

Even though the vast majority of the manuscript evidence mitigates against it, I have no problem with it as it does not introduce a heterodox doctrine.

I don't now have the authority to throw out that which does not belong to me. To do so would be immoral and unethical.

I don't now have the authority to throw out that which does not belong to me. To do so would be immoral and unethical.

I can under stand that. You have little or no understanding of how we got our English bible so you just pick one at random and claim that all others are wrong. But you do that without any valid criteria for your choice.

So have I. For over 50 years.

I do have language skills that include both Greek and Hebrew, and am fairly well versed in English too.

And all those language skills have done is reinforce my understanding of the absolute infallibility of the bible as the word of God.

And I can also answer the question "By what criteria do I set my standard for the word of God."

Unfortunately, you cannot, which is why you keep dodging the question. As soon as you come to understand your position does not have a leg to stand on, then you will be ready to study the issue in depth regarding Hebrew and Greek texts and manuscript evidence, and have your faith in the bible as the word of God greatly strengthened.

 

Please do so.

We are talking about English translations, not about the inspired Hebrew and Greek texts

It is present in my NKJV.

It is present in all the versions I listed.

It in my NKJV.

I think your iceberg just melted!

 

Yes. I asked for the criteria and you answered "None."

I can only take what you post at face value. You said "none." I believed you.

You think wrong. I am not upset in the least.

I don't blame you for wanting to bow out. You can't honestly answer my questions so it is easier to walk away.

You didn't, but suggesting I am offended is a nice smokescreen.

Yes. Still no criteria.

And I pointed out that other versions have enjoyed similar popularity yet you reject them.

So do I. As a preaching bible I prefer the KJV. But my preference does not make other versions "perversions" as so many KJVOs state.

 

Exactly.

Old English morphed into Middle English which resulted with the Ormulum being replaced by the Wycliffe Bible.

Middle English then morphed into Early Modern English which resulted in the Wycliffe Bible being replaced by the Tyndale Bible. (Followed by the Coverdale Bible, followed by the Matthew’s Bible, then the Taverner Bible, then The Great Bible (the first "Authorized Version"), followed by The Geneva Bible, then The Bishops’ Bible (the second "Authorized Version"), then the Rheims-Douai Version) and finally the King James Version (the third "Authorized Version").

And as Early Modern English gradually morphed into Contemporary Modern English which resulted in the New King James Version, the World English Bible, and the English Majority Text Version.

One of the absolute unchangeable facts is that languages change. They evolve. New words are created and the meaning of old words change. (Gay used to mean "lighthearted and carefree." "Grass" used to be something you mowed, not smoked. And so on.

Updated translations are necessary as language evolves. To think otherwise is pure folly.

 

I am not entirely satisfied with any of those you mention either. My major concern with the NKJV is how they translated the present passive participle as a continuing action rather than a state of being. See 1 Cor 1:18, 1 Cor 15:2, and 2 Cor 2:15 for examples.

But I highly recommend both the WEB and the EMTV. The WEB is an update of the American Standard Version of 1901 using the Byzantine textform. The EMTV is a new translation of the Byzantine textform and is very, very good, in my not entirely humble opinion.

 

Since we're entertaining not entirely humble opinions, let me venture that the KJV translators were better English stylists than translators.

The truth is that the very best Hebraist in England was excluded from the translation for the eminently reasonable objection that he couldn't play well with others. And while the KJV scholars (as good scholastics) knew Greek, they cut their teeth on Classical Greek, not Koine. They were indeed versed in Latin, but that may have induced them to look to the Vulgate, rather than the Greek, in translational choices.

None of this is to traduce the translators; it is simply to acknowledge that they were men of their time and education.

The translators, blessed with the work of Tyndale, paid special attention to how the text sounded because they knew that most of their flocks were illiterate. The cadence of the King James Bible influenced English for centuries; you can hear the cadence of the King James in Lincoln's speeches.

But that came at the cost of absolute adherence to the texts. In I Corinthians 15:55, the KJV translators write that "O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?" That's from the Geneva Bible, which is a (stylistic) improvement upon Tyndale's rendering and the Bishops Bible. The KJV translators had the good sense to write English, not Greek. If the 1881 translators were better with Greek than English, it is perhaps true that the KJV translators were better with English than Greek.