Have you ever changed your view on bible translations?

I don't understand KJVO's. We have historical, as well as textual proof, that the Textus Receptus had additions to it.

The Paucity of Greek Scholars in the KJVO camp itself, is rather telling. Personally, I do not like the way the KJV translates doulos as "servant", rather than "slave".

I used to be KJVO, BTW before I actually studied Greek. It is more than just the text that was added: several places have translation errors.

Also, it has always amazed me that the conservative KJO movement demands using a translation based on a text edited and compiled by a Roman Catholic Humanist.:laugh:

 

Your "Preservation Promise" Doctrine Is Unique

That is the thing . It is your opinion that the TR ( or RT ) is superior to the CT ( or any other family of texts ) . There is no definitive test to which you are adhering -- just your personal opinion which you have exalted beyond measure on this issue .

But I will agree that the KJV has added to ( for the most part ) and eliminated verses ( to a lesser degree ) from the true Word of God . It was not the fault of the translators though . They worked with what they had at that time . But do not use one of the many forms of the KJV to determine your idiosyncratic "doctrine" .

 

How can anybody be dogmatic?

How can anyone say that the TR textual body added to or took away from the original manuscripts? Has anyone see them?

How can anyone say that the CT added to or took away from the original manuscripts? Has anyone see them?

If anyone can prove that either body added to or took away from the original mss, please show me.

 

Nope, no one has ever seen one and no one will ever see one. The whole argument about original documents is silly. The "evil one" has used this to great advantage in dividing Christians. :BangHead:

 

Brother Pastor Bob:
// One must choose between CT based translations and TR based translations. Both cannot be "the Word of God."//

Unfortunately your axiom "Both cannot be 'the Word of God' cannot be true for it logically leads to all kinds of errors iwhich can be noted in your conclusions.

My axiom: "Both the MT and CT lines contain the inerrant Written Word of God and jointly constitute ALL SCRIPTURE" does not logically lead to misunderstanding.

Again, if there seems to be errors between the two lines, they are to be worked out by each competent soul. The competent souls who block their minds to the ALL SCRIPTURE are missing part of God's Written Word. It is the duty of the teaching pastors to teach their wards methods of figuring out why it seems there is a difference between two parts of one set of scriptures or between sets of scriptures.

2 Timothy 3:16 (Geneva Bible, 1599 Edition):
For the whole Scripture is giuen by inspiration of God, and is profitable to teache, to conuince, to correct, and to instruct in righteousnesse,

2 Timothy 3:16 (KJV1611 Edition):
All Scripture is giuen by inspiration of God, & is profitable for doctrine, for reproofe, for correction, for instrution in righteousnesse,

What is the difference between 'all Scripture' and the 'whole Scripture'? Whatever the difference - God's meaning is BOTH.

More than one Scripture increases God's Word.

 

Not true. The test of multiplicity of extant mss in agreement, the test of historicity in its use all throughout Christendom, the test of patristic quotations, to name a few. This is not just my personal opinion in the least. There are many scholars who hold the same position as I.

Is not this the intent of the Baptist Board, to express one's opinions? At least you have no doubt as to where I stand.

I believe they had at their disposal all of the readings which we have today. They choose to stay, with very little exception, to the majority readings.

Am I do understand that you can read Greek well enough to determine the right text, or do you rely on English authors like I do?

 

"I used to believe modern translations were ok but now I am KJVO."

This could have been my answer but I feel a need to state that I believe this for English speaking people only.


I read the NIV and RSV for years but I got saved out of a KJV and since then have come to be KJVO.

(I won´t go into "why" since this is not what this thread is about.)

 

Actually, there are also a good number of "omissions or additions" and other discrepancies or differences between and among the pre-1611 English Bibles and the KJV and the other Bibles placed on the KJV-only view's own line of good Bibles such as Peshitta, the Old Latin, Luther's German Bible. For one example, the Great Bible has over 100 words in the book of Psalms and also over 100 words in the book of Acts that are not found or that are omitted in the KJV.

The KJV translators were willing to consult, make use of, be influenced by, and even take some renderings from translations [Greek LXX, Latin Vulgate, 1582 Rheims] that would be placed on the same line with CT based translations.

 

The point is not whether translations disagree, the point is whether the underlying text contains the words or not.

Are these readings found solely in Alexandrian mss, or are they also found in Byzantine mss?

 

I was referring to the 100 extra words in the book of Psalms and the 100 extra words in the book of Acts in the Great Bible that were from the Latin Vulgate.

Since the KJV translators kept those added words that Erasmus added from the Latin Vulgate in his Greek text, why did they omit these other words from the same source? Some of the words added by Erasmus have no or little Byzantine Greek MSS support.

 

Okay - we have long left the topic at hand.

If we want a thread on CT vs. the TR body someone can start one.