June 11, 200917 yr A lot of people grew up with thee and thou and shalt. If your Bible doesn't read like that, then it must be straight from Satan. I think it will take a couple of generations to break the KJV hold. I will say that the KJV is probably the most poetic and graceful read of the various versions. I mostly read the NIV, but if I want to get a more literal translation, I use the NASB.
June 15, 200917 yr A lot of people grew up with thee and thou and shalt. If your Bible doesn't read like that, then it must be straight from Satan. I think it will take a couple of generations to break the KJV hold. I will say that the KJV is probably the most poetic and graceful read of the various versions. I mostly read the NIV, but if I want to get a more literal translation, I use the NASB. I believe that process has started. At this point, I believe a lot of people still prefer the KJV, but they've been exposed to other translations (and people who read them) enough by now to realize that they aren't heretics. The KJV is poetic and graceful. For that reason, I expect it to stick around and not be thrown by the wayside.
June 16, 200917 yr For many people it has nothing to do with the poetic language, or the old English, but rather the text from which it was translated from. The KJV translators used the majority text of the received text=Textus Receptus(all of the New Testament manuscripts compared) and they also compared the English versions already available. Modern translations have been translated from primarily 2 manuscripts-Vaticanus and Sinaticus. Two scolars-Westcott and Hort adopted these as the best manuscripts. This is the text that modern translations are based on. When you see a footnote in one of these bibles that says, "Not in the oldest manuscripts" or "Not in the best manuscripts", they are talking about the two manuscripts mentioned above. The KJ translators compared 5,200 manuscripts that were available and did not depend on just 2 manuscripts. Many feel that the KJV is translated from a superior text.
June 16, 200917 yr For many people it has nothing to do with the poetic language, or the old English, but rather the text from which it was translated from. The KJV translators used the majority text of the received text=Textus Receptus(all of the New Testament manuscripts compared) and they also compared the English versions already available. Modern translations have been translated from primarily 2 manuscripts-Vaticanus and Sinaticus. Two scolars-Westcott and Hort adopted these as the best manuscripts. This is the text that modern translations are based on. When you see a footnote in one of these bibles that says, "Not in the oldest manuscripts" or "Not in the best manuscripts", they are talking about the two manuscripts mentioned above. The KJ translators compared 5,200 manuscripts that were available and did not depend on just 2 manuscripts. Many feel that the KJV is translated from a superior text. That's a good point. But, to be fair, that debate isn't as simple as saying the KJV translators compared a bigger quantity of texts, thus its better. A translator has to weigh the evidence... Do you simply choose the text that is on the majority of transcripts regardless of how old they are? Or are transcripts that are dated closer to the original worthy of more weight? For example, suppose you find a couple of transcripts that are dated in the second century. Then, you find 30 more dated around the 10th century with slightly different texts in some places. Which do you use? Some would say the majority wins. Others say that the transcripts closest to the original are more likely to be the most accurate because there has been less time for errors or alterations to creep in. So, despite a smaller quantity, they deem the ones closest to the original to be more accurate. Your point is correct though. And, its worth noting because it points out that the belief in KJV, for some people, goes beyond the majestic language or being raised on it. In reality, the translations don't have significant differences. There's a couple of passages...one in John (the woman caught in adultery), one in Mark (snake handling), and one in 1 John that some texts don't have. Therefore, some translations leave them out completely...some note that they're not found in all manuscripts...others include them with no note. Those are the biggest differences that I'm aware of. On the rest, any variations in the text doesn't really change the meaning overall.
June 16, 200917 yr Author For many people it has nothing to do with the poetic language, or the old English, but rather the text from which it was translated from. The KJV translators used the majority text of the received text=Textus Receptus(all of the New Testament manuscripts compared) and they also compared the English versions already available. Modern translations have been translated from primarily 2 manuscripts-Vaticanus and Sinaticus. Two scolars-Westcott and Hort adopted these as the best manuscripts. This is the text that modern translations are based on. When you see a footnote in one of these bibles that says, "Not in the oldest manuscripts" or "Not in the best manuscripts", they are talking about the two manuscripts mentioned above. The KJ translators compared 5,200 manuscripts that were available and did not depend on just 2 manuscripts. Many feel that the KJV is translated from a superior text. That is a good reply Hounds. :thumb: However some things aren't exactly as clear as you make them. Textus Receptus is not the whole basis of the KJV. In fact Textus Receptus as we know it now was published in 1633. Here are two articles that outline a little about them: http://www.skypoint.com/members/waltzmn/TR.html http://www.biblicist.org/bible/receptus.shtml The second is from an inerrancy point of view and still points out the problems of the texts the KJV used in translation. I even found some articles that tried to pin modern translations on the Westcott and Hort Texts but that is not true of translations from the last half of the 20th century onward. NASB, NIV, and others use the Nestle-Aland more. You point out that there are a few (Sinaticus, Vaticanus) that are older than Receptus or the Byzantine collection. However they are MUCH older (more than a few centuries). The KJV also did not have the Dead Sea Scrolls which modern translations have. Good to hear from you and others on this and my hope is that God will continue to bless the various translations of scripture to reveal the central truth. :thumb:
June 16, 200917 yr That is a good reply Hounds. :thumb: However some things aren't exactly as clear as you make them. Textus Receptus is not the whole basis of the KJV. In fact Textus Receptus as we know it now was published in 1633. Here are two articles that outline a little about them: http://www.skypoint.com/members/waltzmn/TR.html http://www.biblicist.org/bible/receptus.shtml The second is from an inerrancy point of view and still points out the problems of the texts the KJV used in translation. I even found some articles that tried to pin modern translations on the Westcott and Hort Texts but that is not true of translations from the last half of the 20th century onward. NASB, NIV, and others use the Nestle-Aland more. You point out that there are a few (Sinaticus, Vaticanus) that are older than Receptus or the Byzantine collection. However they are MUCH older (more than a few centuries). The KJV also did not have the Dead Sea Scrolls which modern translations have. Good to hear from you and others on this and my hope is that God will continue to bless the various translations of scripture to reveal the central truth. :thumb: There are thousands of OT manuscripts, 700 plus Dead Sea Scrolls and also version manuscripts(translations in other languages). Some have thought that through all the writing of manuscripts and printing that changes may have occured, but the facts prove otherwise. Compared to the Hebrew OT of 900AD it is the same. The Dead Sea Scrolls date back to 150BC. They were hidden in a cave about 68AD and were found by a shepherd bou in 1947. They weren't even used to make any copies for about 1900 years and yet our printed OT of today is the same. There are 5,300 Greek manuscripts, some containing parts and some all of the NT. There are about 20,000 version manuscripts. Thank God, we have more material for translating the Bible than for any ancient book. And all of these manuscripts compared are in agreement. There are no major differences except what would amount to a crossing of a t or doting of an i in English terms. The variations that are most serious do not change the truth of the Bible regardless of which variation you take. The original writing of the Bible was verbally inspired of God and has been, and will be, preserved of God forever in the manuscripts and translations. We can say these manuscripts and translations are God's word. Just as a human author of some book can say of a printed copy of his book that it is his book even though there may be some variations in the printed copy from his original manuscript, so we can say of the various manuscripts and translations of the Bible, "this is God's inspired word". We can't say of any copy or translation today that this is the original Bible, but we can say it is God's inspired word. With all of this said we should seek the best manuscripts for our use.
June 16, 200917 yr Author There are thousands of OT manuscripts, 700 plus Dead Sea Scrolls and also version manuscripts(translations in other languages). Some have thought that through all the writing of manuscripts and printing that changes may have occured, but the facts prove otherwise. Compared to the Hebrew OT of 900AD it is the same. The Dead Sea Scrolls date back to 150BC. They were hidden in a cave about 68AD and were found by a shepherd bou in 1947. They weren't even used to make any copies for about 1900 years and yet our printed OT of today is the same. There are 5,300 Greek manuscripts, some containing parts and some all of the NT. There are about 20,000 version manuscripts. Thank God, we have more material for translating the Bible than for any ancient book. And all of these manuscripts compared are in agreement. There are no major differences except what would amount to a crossing of a t or doting of an i in English terms. The variations that are most serious do not change the truth of the Bible regardless of which variation you take. The original writing of the Bible was verbally inspired of God and has been, and will be, preserved of God forever in the manuscripts and translations. We can say these manuscripts and translations are God's word. Just as a human author of some book can say of a printed copy of his book that it is his book even though there may be some variations in the printed copy from his original manuscript, so we can say of the various manuscripts and translations of the Bible, "this is God's inspired word". We can't say of any copy or translation today that this is the original Bible, but we can say it is God's inspired word. With all of this said we should seek the best manuscripts for our use. I think your assumption on variance in the manuscripts is a little simplistic. There are many differences among the copies. Not a grand percentage but a percentage nontheless. Just in the links I gave there are some of these pointed out. :thumb:
June 16, 200917 yr I think your assumption on variance in the manuscripts is a little simplistic. There are many differences among the copies. Not a grand percentage but a percentage nontheless. Just in the links I gave there are some of these pointed out. :thumb: The variations that are more serious do not change the truth of the Bible regardless of which variation you take. The story of the Bible and its doctrines are preserved. An example of the most serious variation would be the omission of the last verses of Mark 16 in some manuscripts. If you leave out the verses, or keep the verses, the truth is still the same. If you leave out the verses, the same truths are taught elsewhere in the Bible where there are no variations. If you keep the verses, you have another place these truths are taught which are also taught elsewhere. The nature of all the variations are such as not to change the truth of the Bible. The nature of the variations witnesses to the fact that the Bible has been preserverd as the Bible claims it would be. Again, even though this is true, IMO we should seek the best manuscripts for our use. And IMO the majority text of the received text(Textus Receptus) is the most reliable.:thumb:
June 16, 200917 yr Author The variations that are more serious do not change the truth of the Bible regardless of which variation you take. The story of the Bible and its doctrines are preserved. An example of the most serious variation would be the omission of the last verses of Mark 16 in some manuscripts. If you leave out the verses, or keep the verses, the truth is still the same. If you leave out the verses, the same truths are taught elsewhere in the Bible where there are no variations. If you keep the verses, you have another place these truths are taught which are also taught elsewhere. The nature of all the variations are such as not to change the truth of the Bible. The nature of the variations witnesses to the fact that the Bible has been preserverd as the Bible claims it would be. Again, even though this is true, IMO we should seek the best manuscripts for our use. And IMO the majority text of the received text(Textus Receptus) is the most reliable.:thumb: We would be very close on the above and would have to disagree on the last sentence. :thumb:
June 17, 200917 yr I think all this talk about majority text and Textus Receptus is nonsense. Most Christians would have no idea what you're talking about, especially the KJV thumpers. I'm not putting down any argument about where the versions come from. I just don't think it applies to the original question.
June 17, 200917 yr I think all this talk about majority text and Textus Receptus is nonsense. Most Christians would have no idea what you're talking about, especially the KJV thumpers. I'm not putting down any argument about where the versions come from. I just don't think it applies to the original question. I think it does apply. Maybe people need to learn about majority text and Textus Receptus.
June 17, 200917 yr Author I think it does apply. Maybe people need to learn about majority text and Textus Receptus. I would agree, which is why I pointed to this paper: http://www.skypoint.com/members/waltzmn/TR.html and would also link to: http://www.bible-researcher.com/majority.html http://www.dbts.edu/journals/1996_1/ERASMUS.PDF The last link is a paper from a fundamentalist perspective that actually disputes the TR and Erasmus' translations as the "only" source of biblical translation. It is also very well documented with his research.
June 17, 200917 yr I think all this talk about majority text and Textus Receptus is nonsense. Most Christians would have no idea what you're talking about, especially the KJV thumpers. I'm not putting down any argument about where the versions come from. I just don't think it applies to the original question. You're right...most Christians probably don't know much, if anything, about translations and manuscripts. But, the original question simply asked why some people only want the KJV. Some of those that are aware of what translating entails may truly believe that the manuscripts and the process used when establishing the King James Version are superior. I would say it very much applies.
June 17, 200917 yr You're right...most Christians probably don't know much, if anything, about translations and manuscripts. But, the original question simply asked why some people only want the KJV. Some of those that are aware of what translating entails may truly believe that the manuscripts and the process used when establishing the King James Version are superior. I would say it very much applies. Thank You!:D
June 17, 200917 yr I like the NKJV but I also have used the NIV, NAS, and KJ. If someone insisted on only using the KJV to study out of us I would accomadate them.
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.