SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Image Map
Discussion Forum : General Topics : Call me King James Only! But only if....

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 Next Page )
PosterThread









 Re:

Quote:
If someone (like a new convert) asks me which version they should read, I often tell them a little about the versions themselves. I tell them that the NIV is a good choice if they have trouble with archaic early 17th century English. But I also make them gently aware of the opinions of various academics. I suggest that they eventually learn to use the KJV.



I understand why you would say that, and I wont suggest that you're wrong. Me, personally, I just get them a KJV and they read it. It's amazing to me that I really havent had anyone I've given a KJV to come to me and have any problems understanding it. Yet... Christians who have been believers for a long time claim they cant understand the KJV. That always baffles me.

Krispy

 2006/10/11 16:45
Dougmore
Member



Joined: 2006/8/30
Posts: 122


 Re: What do you think of the "Evidence Bible" from Ray Comfort's ministry?

Hi NLONG,

I'm not Krispy but I do have a pocket Comfortable KJV Bible. I really don't know much about it but I believe that only the heavily repeated Archaic words such as Thou, Thine, Hast, etc. are changed into easier English. I have some family that are KJV lovers and they don't have any problems with this versions texts. I think they are the same as the KJV.

In Christ, bro Doug

 2006/10/11 19:02Profile
ccchhhrrriiisss
Member



Joined: 2003/11/23
Posts: 4502


 Re:

Hi Krispy...

Quote:

KrispyKrittr wrote:
I understand why you would say that, and I wont suggest that you're wrong. Me, personally, I just get them a KJV and they read it. It's amazing to me that I really havent had anyone I've given a KJV to come to me and have any problems understanding it. Yet... Christians who have been believers for a long time claim they cant understand the KJV. That always baffles me.



I understand your point about Christians that have known the Lord for a while. However, my experience with new converts is different. I have known quite a few that have had difficulty with the 17th century language of the KJV (including well educated individuals).

While I do believe that the KJV is the best translation taken from the Textus Receptus, I feel that the present language of the KJV is not "common" anymore. In the Preface of the KJV, the translators made it clear about their intentions for a translation that would negate the need for any sort of ecclesiastic or "scholarly" interpretation. They endeavoured to create a translation in the language of "common man."

Today, the KJV often requires a dictionary, Bible dictionary, or a person to explain the meaning of a word, phrase or passage. While this is quite understandable for sincere believers, it is not for the unbeliever. If an unbeliever has difficulty with the language of the KJV, then it seems plausible that they might have difficulty in understanding the truth. Of course, we know that it is the Spirit who leads us and guides us into all truth. However, the Word of God is the only "truth" that is beyond reproof. One of the biggest problems in the Church today (in my opinion) is the fact that too many people have the Word of God interpreted (or "[i]explained[/i]") to them.

Whenever I explain the differences in translations (including how different versions have been derived from different sources), I am quick to interject that the Word of God is certainly TRUE. I let them know that the Word of God is not confined to a language, a translation or a set of copied sources. I explain that, from the beginning, the Word of God has been translated many times into many languages -- and that understanding it will come through practice reading it with much prayer. I also explain that people should be cautious about listening to too many preachers in various media -- and implore them to seek God first and foremost for understanding of His Word.

:-)


_________________
Christopher

 2006/10/12 1:43Profile
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re:

Quote:
From what I have read about Green's Bible, it is "ok", but does have some issues. I dont remember right now what they were, but I remember thinking that in my opinion they were not big issues. I think Green is headed in the right direction.


Jay Green Sr's Greek Text is that of FHA Scrivener and this opens the whole 'can of worms' regarding what the phrase 'Received Text' really means.

Scrivener reconstructed a Greek text that he believed must be the text from which the KJV translators produced their version. And how did he do it? Well, he used several manuscripts from the Byzantine Textform family and chose put together extracts from those which would have supported the KJV translation, thereby creating the FHA Scrivener Greek text. This is why I referred to a 'can of worms', there is no single manuscript which can be called the 'Received Text'. The so called 'Received Text' was itself the product of editors who examined different manuscripts and came to a 'textual critical' judgment about what they believed best represented the "autographs" (the originals). So the 'Received Text' itself was the product of 'textual critics' and is not itself a specific manuscript.

Scrivener had strong confidence in the edited Greek text known as the 'Received Text' although he himself was a member of the revision committee which produced the English 'Revised Version' of 1881 (a older twin of the American Standard Version). Scrivener also tried to discover what 'edited form of the Received Text' the KJV translators had used as none of the known manuscripts or edited Greek texts would give exactly what they produced in the KJV. Scrivener was really asking the question 'where did they get this translation from?'. He then created his own Greek Text which was a collation of various manuscripts in the Byzantine Textform family.

Green uses this as his basis for his translation and his Interlinear has the following explanation. [color=0000ff]The Greek text herein is purportedly that which underlies the King James Version, as reconstructed by FHA Scrivener in 1894. [/color](RB comment: 13 years after the publication of the RV) [color=0000ff]It thus differs to a degree from all previously printed versions of the Received Text (there are more than 250 differences, most of them quite minor, between this text and the Stephen's 1550 'standard' [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textus_Receptus]Received Text[/url])...

...Careful study, however, will show that this present text does not agree 100% with the text used by the KJV translators, though virtually always it does so. [/color](RB comment: in other words Scrivener's attempt to recreate the exact Greek text behind the KJV was not a 100% success)[color=0000ff]

...Although it is admitted that [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erasmus]Erasmus[/url] has added to his Received Text two or three readings from the Latin Vulgate, without Greek manuscript authority (eg Acts 9:5,6); and, also one from the [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complutensian_Polyglot]Complutension (sic)[/url] Bible has virtually no no Greek manuscript authority (1 John 5:7). We have not delelted these from the Greek text as supplied by the Trinitarian Bible Society, though we do not accept them as part of the true deposit of the Holy Scriptures.[/color]

The underlying point to this post is to draw attention (again) to the fact that the 'Received Text' is not an ancient manuscript but was the product of Bible scholar linguists who created a 'best fit' Greek text; from the several individual manuscripts they were using. Having said this my personal view is that they succeeded, broadly, in doing just that. Scrivener's text built upon theirs and the work goes on with the likes of Pierpont and Robinson who are strong advocates of the Byzantine Textform. You may have noticed the phrase in the Green's quote which refers to "Stephen's 'standard' Textus Receptus". This phrase is admitting that there is no definitive 'Textus Receptus'. It was and will always be a 'work in progress'.

For those who really want to get to the nuts and bolts of this topic you might try [url=http://www.bible-researcher.com/robinson-scrivener.html]here.[/url]


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2006/10/12 5:31Profile









 Re:

Philologos... good points you make here, and I would recommend that those who have not spent much time studying this whole issue for yourself, but would like to... do so.

Let's also mention that while the TR is exactly as Philologos says, the manuscript witnesses making up the TR offer much evidence to it's preservation. There have been many discoveries of ancient writings, such as the first and second century church fathers all the way down to writings from the Middle Ages, that show that there was preservation in the scriptures.

The two main manuscripts comprising the Alexandrian Text (which ALL modern versions either rely heavily or completely on) depart dramatically from the TR.

There is definately two differing schools of manuscripts, thus the sharp division between the KJV/Reformation Bibles and the Modern Versions from 1881 on.

Krispy

 2006/10/12 12:04
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re:

Quote:
There is definately two differing schools of manuscripts, thus the sharp division between the KJV/Reformation Bibles and the Modern Versions from 1881 on.


Krispy
This is true in its specifics ie the KJV derives from the Byzantine Textform and the RV/ASV (the ASV is really the US committees version of the RV) derives almost entirely from the two manuscripts (Sinaiticus and Vaticanus) but almost every translation since the RV/ASV has swung back a little towards the Byzantine Textform. You can almost always spot something which is heavily dependent on the Sinai/Vatican codices by checking two verses:

[color=0000ff]“Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the [u]church of God[/u], which he hath purchased with his own blood.” (Acts 20:28 KJVS)

“Take heed unto yourselves, and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit hath made you bishops, to feed the [u]church of the Lord[/u] which he purchased with his own blood.” (Acts 20:28 ASV)[/color]

Note the switch from the God to Lord which weakens the Trinitarian position.

[color=0000ff]“And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: [u]God[/u] was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.” (1Tim 3:16 KJVS)

“And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness; [u]He[/u] who was manifested in the flesh, Justified in the spirit, Seen of angels, Preached among the nations, Believed on in the world, Received up in glory.” (1Tim 3:16 ASV)[/color]

...where the switch from 'God' to 'He' again weakens the Trinitarian testimony.

A comparison of different versions shows that many modern version have not gone totally with the Sinai/Vatican manuscripts. eg

[url=http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/versions.pl?book=Act&chapter=20&verse=28&version=KJV#28]Acts 20:28[/url]
[url=http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/versions.pl?book=1Ti&chapter=3&verse=16&version=KJV#16]1 Tim 3:16[/url]


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2006/10/12 12:50Profile
crsschk
Member



Joined: 2003/6/11
Posts: 9192
Santa Clara, CA

 KJV, Preference

Must applaud all who have contributed to this post. Of the many discussions on what has become such a volitale issue, this I believe will go a long way in communicating an understanding and that without hostilities.

A great deal of time in the past there has been such an emphesis on particulars as to only confuse the issue beyond recognition. Will make it 'sticky' for future reference.


_________________
Mike Balog

 2006/10/12 16:40Profile
artemioL
Member



Joined: 2006/3/25
Posts: 27


 Re: KJV, Preference

TAG'D

 2006/10/12 20:02Profile









 Re:

Just jumping in here but I find the free bible software program
http://www.e-sword.net/bibles.html
really helpfull with tons of different translations to compare with as well as helps , dictionaries and commentaries
yrs Jim

 2006/10/16 21:24
jimbob
Member



Joined: 2005/9/25
Posts: 131


 Re:

KrispyKrittr wrote:

Quote:

There are other examples in the NKJV that cause me to reject it. NOT because it's in modern English, but because it changes the meanings of many passages and that has the effect of changing some doctrines.





KK, just curious as to which Christian doctrines have been "changed" in the NKJV? NIV? NASB?

 2006/10/18 6:16Profile





©2002-2020 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Affiliate Disclosure | Privacy Policy