How many errors in 1769 Oxford KJV?

FTR, I am not a 'fan' of the NWT, by any stretch. I did not vote in the poll, for it did not adequately express my personal beliefs, there, but did already write comentary.

Were I to remove a, granted, rather large handful of verses that are 'translated' as they are to provided specific 'doctrinal' reinforcement of beliefs, I would find little to disagree with in 95% of the translation. It really is very hard to find a difference, sometimes:

One might note in the NWT Col. 1:16-17, even the 'translators' were forced to admit this is not found in the text.

One Ken Anderson said it this way:

I'd offer that Mr. Anderson says it better than I could, here.
Sometimes it works; sometimes it doesn't! IOW, even this "put-up-job" does not always accomplish all its intentions, and the NWT would be at least "Exhibit B" in that regard.

All this said, I would be the first to suggest avoiding the NWT, as it is an obviously 'made' translation with what amounts to a poison solution. As a farmer, I am fully aware that a 1% solution of some poisons will kill everything that it hits just as certainly as a 100% mix. Why take the chance when it is unnecessary?

Ed

"A" Added by Ed for emphasis, not found in the text.

 

You might remind any Muslim who asks, "Why so many Bible versions?" that there are FOUR versions of the Q'ran in Arabic alone. The Shiites, Sunnis, Wahabis, & Sufis each have their own Q'ran version.

 

Ken Anderson:

The "translators" of the NWT, Fred Franz & George Gangas, didn't "translate" at all! They altered the RV by adding the JW doctrines to it & removing the contrary ones, such as all references to Jesus being God on earth. Neither Franz nor Gangas knew any Hebrew, but they both knew the JW doctrines quite well!

 

Yes, I can see how some could get it backwards. I too read it wrong. I read "valid" for "invalid". Perhaps an easier wording may have been "Which of these translations are not valid?" But of course it was I who misread it. Sorry.
As I have mentioned before, I use the KJV because for me it reads well and is easier to memorise. There are many translations out there, some of which I use in order to get a better understanding of a particular passage or verse. I also use commentaries and look up the Greek and Hebrew.
I thought the argument has always traditionally been, that it was the "original" languages that are inerrant? I'm not trying to be awkward here, but I can't really see how something can be directly translated into English from either the Hebrew or the Greek? I see the same arguments taking place among Muslims and their translating the Arabic version of the Quran into English. There are problems, surely? That is the reason we study the original languages?
I apologise if I appear to be over simplifying the problem. I've even used the New World translation when speaking to Jehovah's Witnesses. I began the Christian life with a J. B. Phillips translation. But I must admit I do love the KJV and always revert to that for general use.

Ps: In reference to using the NWT with JW's I find it even more useful when they use their interlinear verson. For then I can point out to them what a particular passage or verse says in the Greek.

 

That is good information. I will remember that. Thank you very much. :thumbs:

 

Grahame: //I thought the argument has always traditionally been, that it was the "original" languages that are inerrant? I'm not trying to be awkward here, but I can't really see how something can be directly translated into English from either the Hebrew or the Greek? I see the same arguments taking place among Muslims and their translating the Arabic version of the Quran into English. There are problems, surely? That is the reason we study the original languages?//

I'm not a cookie cutter Christian (ccC).
I study the scripture for myself and commune
with the Holy Spirit about what I should do about
what it says.

Contrary to others:

I believe that all English Versions are (collectively and
individualy) are the inerrant Written Word of God.
If there seems to be some descrpancy, let us talk about it
here in the Versions/Translations forum.

I only throw a sop to those who think some bibles are 'invalid'.

 

Well, yes of course. The very fact that we all (presumably) believe the same things concerning Christ and salvation, proves that God has got the message across to us even though we all read different translations. It is Christ, the uncreated word Himself who is inerrant. Although I can see that in every translation there are discrepancies within the text, nevertheless this is no hinderance to our salvation. The great doctrines are still there. Even if every translation were word perfect, there would still be those who would make it read something else. Even when Christ walked this earth he sufferered the contradiction of sinners.

 

Doctrinal errors is what I am referring to. Such as the virgin birth, diety of Jesus Christ, preservation of Gods Word, etc.

 

This exactly the kind of error that we are in disagreement on. In the verse above "him" has been taken from the Vulgate. The changing of this one word has totaly destroyed the belief and faith of many in God to preserve his Holy Word in a perfect way for his children. It is correctly translated "them" in the KJV.

 

WITH ALL DUE RESPECT...

Please read an AV 1611 or a repro if at all possible. You'll see a marginal note for the second them in Psalm 12:7 that reads, "Heb. him, I. euery one of them". The AV men used "them" ONLY because they knew the preceding verses referres to plural PEOPLE. In their marginal note (conveniently left outta later KJV editions) the translators give the LITERAL meaning of the Hebrew.

 

Please show us where any of the above doctrines are left outta any valid MV.

I can tell you a doctrine left outta EVERY version, old or new....KJVO!

 

Amen, Brother Cranston! Preach it!

 

Anyone should be able to see from the context of the chapter that it is not talking about the preservation of words! It is talking about the preservation of people! Another fine example of the true meaning of Scripture being ignored in the interest of promoting a false "doctrine."

 

I second the motion:

Amen, Brother Robocop3 -- you are so RIGHT ON! :thumbs: