KJV for academic study (long)

Too bad all those millions of christians who have trusted the KJV for lo these 400 years were so deceived into thinking they could trust something so unreliable. They are probably in hell now.

 

Rest assured that "All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness," (2 Timothy 3:16, ESV).
For personal devotional study any translation can be profitable.

"I asked her why the KJV was inappropriate for academic study..."
The key word in your opening post was “academic”.

Today, we have the great advantage of being able to examine thousands of manuscripts to discern if an err occurred in a copy.
In 1600, the sampling was limited.

The greater the number of manuscripts, clearer things get;
the earlier the date of the manuscript, the less possibility of error upon err;
the broader the distribution of manuscripts, the ability to get samples relatively untarnished by errors in other locales.

For academic study, you want the text that has all the advantages scholars can provide.

Rob

 

Just out of curiosity (and as an aside from your topic), what did she feel was appropriate for academic study? NASB? ESV?

I agree with Rob, so much has come to light. AND we have learned so much more about language and history and the nuances of language and the interactions of people. This does not take away from the KJV in any way shape or form.

 

Jim, as has been pointed out in these forums ad nauseum, the KJV as well as the MVs present the plan of salvation so that anyone who believes can be saved. God has preserved His word through various English Bible translations from the earliest to the most recent. No one is saying KJV readers are condemned to hell because they read the KJV. There will be many in heaven who read the KJV, but there will also be many who read other versions, believe it or not! Would you care to comment on how many people you think are condemned to hell because they read MVs?

 

I don't want to demean the wonderful efforts of Jerome . However , the Vulgate has even more errors than the KJV and has been around more than four times as long . Many souls came to a saving knowledge by reading it or hearing it preached . The Lord has preserved His Word . All the essentials are in place . I remember reading years ago from Josh's book " Evidence That Demands A Verdict " that even if every Bible ( Old Testaments and New ) would vanish from the face of the earth -- we have practically the whole canon contained in the works of the Apostolic Fathers .

 

Dear student,

The short answer is: it seems by your account that your professor is essentially correct in her answers.

The long answer is: the debate about the KJV's reliability rages daily, and will likely go on for another 400 years.

The fact is, the KJV is somewhat a rare representative of both an extremely old English translation, and a very narrow, unique underlying Greek text (in the New Testament). There are other early English versions, but they are not as readily available as KJVs (i.e. Tyndale, Geneva). There are a more contemporary English Bibles, or New Testaments, based upon the same Greek text (some not so modern, such as Webster's). Some of these are edited or 'updated' KJVs (i.e. 20th Century KJV, KJV3) with the most common being the NKJV (but also the LITV and some others).

You did not ask about the Good News Bible, and Living Bible, so I assume you knew, or found out, that these are paraphrases (like The Message and others), and thus are not appropriate for your academic course.

 

I have a lot of trouble with the KJV being put in the same class as the Living Bible.

A terribly unfair comparison, IMO.

 

Amen! The KJV and other literal translations (and some that are not so literal), stand heads and shoulders above the paraphrases.

 

Well, rbell, I do agree. The KJV is a scholarly work. I might not think it the most scholarly, but the others are not scholarly at all. It's been a while since I looked at the Living Bible, but I believe Taylor readily admitted that.

Now, I am just as curious as to how the prof picked the NRSV, RSV and NIV. Perhaps my preference for the NASB and ESV is showing

 

I think that the professor disqualified the KJV and the paraphrases for completely different reasons. The result was that they all reside on the same list, but it does not mean that they were in any way being compared together. That is my explanation.

 

I don't know how it all got started, but it seems the RSV, and subsequently the NRSV, have been the choice of academia for quite some time.

Frankly, I am surprised the NIV is acceptable for this course study. Perhaps, it has to do with accessibility. I would have guessed NASB, NEB, or NAB would have been the preferred secondary options.

 

Before that they trusted God.

 

But if accessiblity is the issue, the KJV should be ok. I was surprised by the NIV too in the same list with the RSV and the exlusion of the NASB. BUT I have to remind myself that we are talking secular academia and not religious academia.

 

The NIV is being slighted here , I believe . It certainly is more form-driven than the NEB and even its more conservative modern counterpart - the REB . I would say that the NAB is a tad more free than the NIV as well . The NIV holds up rather well in comparison with the RSV .

 

As soon as the NIV puts back all the missing verses.....well, we won't go there again, will we?? :BangHead:

I know that the "learned" professor got some of that info from Wikipedia,
which allows virtually ANYONE to submit information.

Read "The Final Authority" and tell me which version is most accurate.

I will stick with my KJV and let God be my interpreter.

Debbie Mc

 

Amen amen amen amen and a hearty AMEN to that one sister!!!!:thumbs: :thumbs:

 

double post......sorry.