SermonIndex Audio Sermons
SermonIndex - Promoting Revival to this Generation
Give To SermonIndex
Discussion Forum : Scriptures and Doctrine : Corrupted King James?

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 Next Page )
PosterThread
philologos
Member



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

 Re:

Quote:
I have a question: If you are KJV only... what does that mean for non-english countries?

I have 'discussed' some of these topics with individuals here on SI who tell me I must not 'correct' the King James Version by referring to the Greek text!

Although 'foreign translations' cannot be 'KJV' they can be based on the Byzantine textform and so become local 'equivalents' of the KJV in their own language. Most modern translations both English and 'other' are now not based on the Byzantine textform.


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2005/11/28 11:55Profile
philologos
Member



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

 Re:

It's not exactly a 'comparison chart' but you can use [url=http://www.bible-researcher.com/title.html]Michael Marlowe's Comparison[/url] to compare the different 'editors'.


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2005/11/28 11:58Profile
ccchhhrrriiisss
Member



Joined: 2003/11/23
Posts: 4779


 Re:

Hi Graftedbranch...!

Quote:
I have been on both sides of the KJV only debate. What has kept me from embracing the KJV only position is the circular arguments and logic which are usually employed.

The KJV is an excellent translation. But it is only a translation and if you read the preface to the 1611 KJV you will see the translators themsleves considered it to be "a better translation" than the previous "good translations" and the argued that "any translation no matter how mean, is still the word of God".

And all the arguments the translators of the 1611 KJV put forth to produce their translation are argued against by those who see any attempt to make a better one as a corruption of the "perfect Word of God".

But the underlyng Textus Receptus which was compiled by Erasmus is a composit of all the known existing manuscripts of that day.

IN subsequent years many older text were uncovered including the infamous "Vatacanus B" which are Alexandrian in origen, but many feel they are corrupted and therefore unreliable.

What strikes the strongest nerve in the KJV only andherents is the lists of verses of all the modern translations compared to the King james Version. They use the KJV as the standard, show all the verses in the others where a word or phrase is "ommited" and thereby conclude that they are corruptions of the Word of God which they define as the King James Version.

Well said. I prefer to use the currently accepted edition of the King James Version (from 1769). It is the most widely used version, and the bulk of all study aids from the past are geared around it. However, I still use other academic translations -- like the NASV, and (gulp) even the NIV (1978). The ease of use, present-day english used, and the "scrutinizable accuracy" is acceptable to me.

The Word of God is indeed perfect. But all translations -- [u]including[/u] the King James Version -- are flawed. Why? Because they were created by flawed (although well-meaning) men. That is why I pray about the verses and passages that I read. The Spirit is more than able to lead us and guide us into all truth.

What bothers me the most about this issue are the believers that immediately pass judgment upon or dismiss those believers that are not KJV-only. I am certain that many of such believers feel that they are doing a [i]service[/i] for the Lord. They feel that they "know" the certainty of this issue, and refuse to accept the notion that their research may not be totally accurate -- or may be slightly "nearsighted." I "listen" to both "sides" in this debate -- but I do not blindly accept the argument of either.

:-)


_________________
Christopher

 2005/11/28 13:06Profile
Graftedbranc
Member



Joined: 2005/11/8
Posts: 619


 Re:

Quote:
I have 'discussed' some of these topics with individuals here on SI who tell me I must not 'correct' the King James Version by referring to the Greek text!



Yes, one wonders how those in other contries which do not speak English get on without the "Pure Words of God" contained in the 1611 King James Bible.

I suppose only a translation of the King James Bible is acceptable with no aids from the Greek manuscripts.


Graftedbranch

 2005/11/28 14:32Profile
Billy7
Member



Joined: 2005/8/9
Posts: 61


 Re: Corrupted King James?

Does anyone know of any modern translations that are based on the Textus Receptus? My experience has been that there are none.

Are there any other translations,besides the KJV, that are?

Thanks,
Billy


_________________
Billy Evans

 2005/11/28 19:41Profile









 Here's how I know .....

we're in the midst of High School football season.....a KJV refutation thread and Krispy Kritter is nowhere to found.....

Krispy!! Where you at?

 2005/11/28 19:48
philologos
Member



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

 Re:

Quote:
Does anyone know of any modern translations that are based on the Textus Receptus? My experience has been that there are none.



The [url=http://www.mkjvonline.com/]Modern KJV[/url] by Jay P. Green Sr is based on the Byzantine Textform. It is available for most Bible software and in a printed version. It also tries to be a more 'literal equivalence' translation.

There is a full explanation of the MKJV and its philosophy [url=http://www.chrlitworld.com/BookSGP/MKJVExplain.htm]here.[/url]


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2005/11/29 2:39Profile
groh_frog
Member



Joined: 2005/1/5
Posts: 432


 Re:

So, there's really no way to know which texts are more original?

Grace and Peace...

 2005/11/29 4:23Profile
philologos
Member



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

 Textual Criticsim: the study of probability in textual transmission

Quote:
So, there's really no way to know which texts are more original?

The whole discipline of 'Textual Criticism' is concerned with this very issue. It simply means a reasoned approach to ascertaining what the original 'autographs' (the copy in Paul's own handwriting etc) actually said. This discipline can be very subjective in its development which is why many are deeply suspicious of the philosophy behind the various scholars who engage in this work.

If you have two manuscripts which have the slightest difference you are immediately launched on a study of which is the better. If you have 3 manuscripts which differ slightly you have the added possiblities and even the possibility that none of them is completely accurate. You then have to say which is likely to be closest to the originals. Some scholars say the longer version is likely to be the more accurate, some say the shorter version and some say the middle one! If a single word is different in all three you then ask the questions about which is the most likely original or which is the most likely mistake that a copyist may have made.

This is a very complicated study process and godly men have sometimes come to different conclusions about this. I have studied the topic over many years but not intensively. I understand it sufficiently to follow some of the more complicated arguments. But it is a highly technical field of study and pretty difficult for most to follow precisely.


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2005/11/29 5:29Profile
Warrior4Jah
Member



Joined: 2005/7/5
Posts: 382
The Netherlands

 Re:

Hey philologos,

Can you tell me what the difference of the NKJV and the MKJV is? The page you quoted didn't mention the NKJV. I already know that those are not the same.


_________________
Jonathan Veldhuis

 2005/11/29 5:52Profile





©2002-2024 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Revival to this Generation.
Privacy Policy