The perfection and the accuracy

Can you clarify what you're asking?

 

Askjo, in terms of accuracy do you mean in relation to the hebrew/greek manuscripts on which the KJV is based upon? Or are you referring to the differences in the KJV text (i.e. Cambridge vs. Oxford)? Either way, defining it as "perfect" becomes very subjective.

 

Compare to the Cambridge 1611 KJV and the Oxford 1611 KJV. </font>[/QUOTE]um, i thot there was a He, a She, n a somewhat hermaphrodite KJB1611--the 3rd being a mixup in the pages fr the 2 preceding KJBs.

can someone clarify w gter certainty? i always thot the Cambridge/Oxford distinction applied more to the 1769 KJB.

 

Alex M. If you should read this. Thank you for last thoughts re NKJV on the thread that was closed before I got to reply. It has come to my knowledge that the NKJV is translated from the TR and the old Bomberg MT. That is why I mentioned the NKJV alongside some other versions based on the same traditional texts. I have the NKJV but rarely use it, and am not well familiar with it. I have read claims that it is a weak updating of the KJV. I would have to do some comparisons so as to know how much of these claims are true. I have also seen some certain comparisons where the NKJV renders the Greek of the NT more accurately than the KJV. And I assume there are passages where it is vice versa.

If you perchance are interested in learning about the quality of some of the versions I mentioned, like LITV, MKJV, YLT, VW-Bible 2003, you will find them all online. The first three are all available for free in the e-Sword Bible study program...

http://e-sword.net/downloads.html

VW-Bible 2003 is found at...

http://a-voice.org/bible-vw/bible.htm

e-Sword also has the Geneva Bible. The Sword Project, another free downloadable Bible study program, has YLT, MKJV, LITV, and Tyndale's NT, and Wycliffe's translation. Found at...

http://www.crosswire.org/sword/index.jsp


I would not want to say whether the KJV is better than these, or inferior to them or to any one of them. I just know they are all translations based on the same traditional texts, and all are FE versions like the KJV also is, none of them are DE versions.

You did mention DE, and myself happens to be well familiar with the DE vs. FE controversy. I am staunchly opposed to DE when it comes to Bible translating.

Myself likes e-Sword better than Sword Project, chiefly due to the former having larger font, thus being easier on my eyes.

Enjoy discussing these things with you.


Harald

 

Perhaps some specific examples might help in illustrating your point. Below are some examples of changes in the wording of the text found in different editions of the KJV:


"The humble shall see this, and be glad: and your heart shall live that seek *good.*" (Psa. 69:32, 1611 KJV)

"The humble shall see this, and be glad: and your heart shall live that seek *God*." (Psa. 69:32, today's KJV)


"For her blood is in the midst of her; she set it upon the top of a rock; she poured it upon the ground, to cover it with dust" (Ezek. 24:7, 1611 KJV).

"For her blood is in the midst of her; she set it upon the top of a rock; she poured it *not* upon the ground, to cover it with dust" (Ezek. 24:7, today's KJV).


"But when he saw Jesus afar off, he *came* and worshipped him" (Mk. 5:6, 1611 KJV)

"But when he saw Jesus afar off, he *ran* and worshipped him" (Mk. 5:6, today's KJV)


Of each pair, which one is the "perfect" one and which one is the "accurate" one? And how do you know this?

 

The following website has a pretty good list of differences between the 1611 and the modern KJV (1850?):
http://members.aol.com/pilgrimpub/revision.htm

I took the following information from another website: http://www.kjvonly.org/other/norris_spelling.htm which shows some of the differences between modern publishing of the KJV:

I have also noticed that many KJV's differ in the capitalization of the word "spirit". Mark 1:12 is a good example. Was Jesus lead into the wilderness by the Spirit or by the spirit. Not that it matters, both would be the Holy Spirit, but a lower case "s" is not consistent with the rest of the NT. If I am not mistaken, both Cambridge and Oxford have a capital "S", but there seems to be a hybrid text that Nelson was using for a long time (same text used in the Open Bible) that has a lower case "s".

This is certainly interesting. I would really like to know the history behind some of these subtle changes.

 

I have also noticed that many KJV's differ in the capitalization of the word "spirit". Mark 1:12 is a good example. Was Jesus lead into the wilderness by the Spirit or by the spirit. Not that it matters, both would be the Holy Spirit, but a lower case "s" is not consistent with the rest of the NT. If I am not mistaken, both Cambridge and Oxford have a capital "S", but there seems to be a hybrid text that Nelson was using for a long time (same text used in the Open Bible) that has a lower case "s".

[/QB][/QUOTE]

that's an EXCELLENT point!

in the English, it's often impossible to separate Interpretation from Translation. regardless of one's choice of option--whether or not to capitalise the letter s--or translation philosophy--formal or functional equiv--an interp has to be made!

 

So how do we know if we're getting the Campbridge or the Oxford edition unless the Bible is published by one of the two publishers?