Why the KJV?

i love my bible (the kjv) and i'm not interested in trying to pick it apart or "improve" it. anything that appears to be a problem or contradiction i simply assume is a failure of my own understanding. the efforts i have put into learning it's mild archaisms has more than been paid back by its beautiful and accurate renderings, free of 20th century bias. i love my bible

[ March 18, 2003, 11:13 PM: Message edited by: timothy 1969 ]

 

I would definitely agree with that. Instead, it has 17th century bias.

Neal

 

God may never have made a grammatical error when inspiring the Scripture, but grammatical rules are deduced from usage, and are human constructs. There are numerous words and passages in the KJV (especially if you go back behind the 18th-century spelling-revisionist texts that are now generally published as KJV) that are or would be egregious errors in this day and age but that were perfectly good Elizabethan usage (and I say Elizabethan because so much of KJV is taken over bodily from versions produced in her reign or even Henry's). What grounds do you have for thinking "all" is less grammatical than "alla" (or vice versa)? That may be no more sensible than saying "It's" is less grammatical than "'Tis" (or vice versa). Elision of a final vowel before an initial vowel may have been perfectly normal in some Greek dialects or idiolects. The NT (no matter which Greek text you use) bears constant witness to the fact that the Greek God inspired did not adhere to the grammatical rules that had been current in Greek at the same historical remove from composition that obtains between the present and 1611. No NT writer follows the rules of grammar and usage that Aristophanes or Aristotle followed. Much less Homer.

Haruo
(who admittedly doesn't know much Greek)

 

I don't.The underlying texts(Alexandrian family) poly-versions are based on have nullified that possiblity."If it aint broke,don't fix it."

 

So you are okay with the NKJV then? It is not based on the 'Alexandrian' family and is in modern English. So by your own admittance the NKJV must be okay with you. Don't give me the line that it was based on the same "corrupt Alexandrian" family as all the others. That is a lie and only comes ignorance or willful denial of reality, since it is based on the TR.

Neal

 

It is in part from the KJB/TR,but only in part;it does,however,have Alexandrian readings from the ASV,RSV & NASV(1st Cor 5:6).

Nope( 1st Cor 5:6)

Well, one out of two is not too bad.

Nope. (1st Cor 5:6).

OK,but out of sight,out of mind wont work.

 

HankD. I think you have a reasonable attitude to "modern versions" in that where they agree in their rendering to the TR you use them. Have I understood you aright? As for me I may not wholeheartedly endorse modern versions such as e.g. NASB or ASV, mostly due to the wrong underlying text, yet I feel I am free to quote from them where they accurately translate the Greek. I do not endorse modern DE versions at all, but I do grant that in some instances some of them make acceptable renderings, and that is when they go formal equivalent, which sadly is quite rare.

Harald

 

Haruo. I readily grant that the KJV may have had and may still have some grammatical errors, but then again it is not divinely inspired like the autographs, only derivatively inspired where and when it accurately translates the Greek. I am not KJV Only, and am critical of the KJV in instances where it does not render the underlying Greek aright. I think the original inspiration of God was "all ebasileusen". "Alla eb." is an error of copying. I see no reason why Paul would in every other instance follow a manifest rule of grammar (elision of a final vowel before an initial vowel) when it comes to the word "alla". And like you I also believe God was not bound to grammar rules which may have prevailed in the age of Aristotle, but the example I gave is an inconsistency which I cannot account for except that it is a copyist error.

Harald (probably knows even less of Greek)

 

Matt Black. You said "The original Greek MSS contain grammatical errors". I sternly object. If you mean the existing Greek copies I think you are right, but the originally inspired autographs which are perished long ago were error-free.

John's Gospel in the original Greek autograph was perfectly written, not just "quite well-written". I think the Textus Receptus, which is a representative of the originally given Greek NT of Christ is a perfect or near to perfect copy of the original when it comes to John's Gospel. If you object you must show where the TR has error(s) in John. John 1:1 in the Greek editions (TR, Alexandrian, MT) contains no errors whatsoever. You ought to know that Koine Greek has no indefinite article, a/an, like English and my mother tongue Swedish, and some other tongues. God inspired John to leave out the determiner in front of the second Theos. If you do not understand why you must search out the matter, otherwise you will be perpetrating an error. But I will say this much. When a word has a determiner it seeks to portray the substantive as distinct or particular. When a substantive is anarthrous it usually means the writer wants to emphasize quality or character, yet sometimes obviously the sense is just as the English indefinite article + substantive. The last clause of John 1:1 could perhaps be rendered "and the Word was Deity", at least I think the sense of the original wording may be this. If it had had an article it would have manifestly meant that "ton Theon" of the middle clause was exactly the same person as "ho Logos" - the Word. The Greek says the Word was with "the God", i.e. God the Father, and that the Word was God, but that He was not "THE God", i.e. God the Father. Hope it makes sense.

Furthermore, there is no need to think Iôannês (John), anarthrous, is an error. It should not be understood as "a John". Sometimes John was inspired to mention John with the article, sometimes without it, just as the inspiring Spirit moved him. The same goes for the name "Jesus" in the NT, sometimes anarthous, not meaning "a Jesus", simply "Jesus".

Harald

 

I would like to know where it is based on 'Alexandrian' texts. Translations in spots may be similar, but hey, the KJV shares similar places as well. So does it have Alexandrian tendencies too? Give me a break. The NKJV is based on the TR and is not based on any 'Alexandrian' text. You are having problems comprehending facts. I think your bias is getting in the way.

Neal

 

The NKJV has ASV,RSV and NASV readings inserted in the text;look at 2thessalonians 2:7,James 5:16,Matt 20:20,Acts 4:27. Also, look at, 2 Tim 2:7 is a ASV reading,1 Thessalonians 5:22 is a ASV reading,Acts 4:27,30 is a ASV reading which attacks the deity of Christ,Acts 4:13 is the NASV reading,2Tim 2:22 & 2:26 are NASV readings,John 14:2 is a RSV & NASV reading,2Tim 4:6 is a NASV reading,Acts 17:29 is from the NASV,1st John 3:4,7 is also a NASV reading.

Of course,the poly-versions must mimic the real thing to $ell;but in reality,you have it backwards the poly-versions share similar readings as the KJB.

Of course not;who told you that?

It does have "some" KJB/TR renderings in it alright.I never said it was based only on Alexandrian texts;but it is in part ( 1st Cor 5:6).

Wow!! unbelievable! well, maybe not..

 

Several points of needed mention:

As for grammatical errors in the original, we must remember that language is descriptive, not prescriptive. The Greek language is very fluid and the absence or use of articles in John 1 does not mean John misused it or erred. It means that Greek is different than English. You cannot expect the article to be used in the same way.

As for the NKJV, it is based on the TR (unfortunately). When someone says that they reject the NKJV, you have a died in the wool KJOnlyist for whom the original languages mean nothing.

1 Cor 5:6 keeps getting quoted for some unknown reason. It has nothing to do with texts and translations. It seems yet another desparate attempt from those who have no actual evidence on their side. The point of 1 Cor 5:6 that may be applied here is that a little false doctrine affect everybody and should be driven out. That could well be applied to the KJOnlyists, and perhaps should be. But in reality, it has no bearing on this discussion.

 

Wallace, in Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, a widely recognized expert differs with you and cite BAGD and Robertson for support.

I think Wallace's words should be clear. The article is not always used with the proper name and there is no way to say why it is or why it is not used in a given instance.

 

I would thank Larry for that quote.

With due respect Matt B, but I think in here you are skating on thin ice. I also say it is very difficult for us to know why the Spirit of God sometime inspired a writer to use definite article with a proper name, and sometimes omitted it. I once more emphasize, the original God-breathed NT autographs in Koine Greek had absolutely no errors of whatever kind. They were given by absolutely infallible inerrant divine inspiration. If a person militates against this I can only pity his folly, and he is also militating against the so called classic orthodox Christian position of bibliology as pertains to verbal and plenary inspiration. Whatever errors may occur in some existing MSS copies of today are not a product of the original process of inspiration, but are faults of copyists or someone who perchance deliberately corrupted the God-breathed wording of the original. The fallible original penmen were moved of God the Spirit to write down an infallible and inerrant New Testament, which in the original autographs (handwritten documents) had absolutely no error of any kind, not grammatical, not factual, not doctrinal, not theological, not scientific etc., simply none errors.

Harald

 

Matt Black. I would also point out that you or I or someone else can to a very high degree know what the original MSS said. The existing NT Greek copies, over 5000, inform us as to that. The Greek NT editions so called, the Textus Receptus (Erasmus, Stephanus, Beza, Elzevier, Scrivener), the Alexandrian editions (Westcott-Hort, Nestle, UBS), and the newest, the Majority Text (Hodges-Farstad, and the Pierpont-Robinson)are all attempts at reconstruction of the entire original canonical Koine Greek NT of the Lord Christ. Logic dictates that some or one out of these many editions must be the closest representation of the original Greek Testament. Myself has a high confidence in Scrivener's 1894 TR. I cannot know to how high a per cent it matches the original Greek NT, but I would guess it is above 99%. I would be a fool to say any more.

I would be very unwise to say I cannot know what the original MSS said, as I believe this one is a trustworthy reconstruction of the original New Testament. Right now there are two instances in this TR which puzzles me somewhat, "book of life" in Rev. 22:19, which claimedly has no support from any Greek MSS in existence today. The other is the word akathartêtos in Rev. 17:4, which also claimedly has no MSS support from existing Greek copies available today, plus that it seems the word appears nowhere else in Greek literature. Apart from these two I feel there is no need for me to question the integrity of the Scrivener TR. Not that these two make me hesitate respecting it, just that I cannot explain the readings, nor do I know if they are errors, which the facts are seemingly indicating. If I am forced to point out an absolute authority in written form as respects the NT Scriptures I would opt for Scrivener's TR. As for the OT Scriptures I would opt for the Hebrew Masoretic Text, more specifically the one being published by the Trinitarian Bible Society, which is Bomberg's edition of 1524-25. If these two texts are not valid final authorities for me as respects faith and practice etc., then I am only left with the fallible writings of fallible men and mine own foolish mind and weak conscience, kind of like "every man did what was right in their own eyes". I thank God for these said original language texts. I need not be in darkness as to what God the Lord has revealed in written form to mankind, of which I am part.

Harald

 

Please prove that the NKJV translators took the text of the other versions and decided to insert it. Or could it be that they are alike because they are more accurate to the underlying text than the KJV?

So the KJV doesn't make anyone any money? Last time I went to a bookstore, the KJV was being sold just like all the other versions.

No one. That is not a fact, but is a logical continuation of your thinking.

Okay, time to call it like I see it. This is an outright LIE. Please prove that the translators took the 'Alexandrian' texts and used them as a basis for any part of the translation. The NKJV New Testament is based on the TEXTUS RECEPTUS! You forget as well that the MVs have 1 Cor. 5:6 as well, so it could equally be used against you.

Actually your denial of fact is rather unbelievable. You are no longer ignorant of the fact that the NKJV was based on the TR. From here on out any accusation on your part of the NKJV being based on the 'Alexandrian' manuscripts is an outright, willful lie.

What would be an acceptable Modern English Translation to you? What would it have to do? How about the MKJV or the LITV? Your continually denial of all these versions show that you are really not concerned with the underlying text but rather a 17th century Anglican government translation.

Neal

 

Oops! Double post!

Neal

 

Just crack open a New King Jimmy Version and a RSV,ASV& a NASV and look;don't take my word for it,LOOK THEM UP!!

See the above;look them up!!Are you so thinned skinned that if you were to look them up you would be proven wrong?? I will always maintain that most poly-versionist fear ridicule from their peers(when it comes to admiting fault) more than the fear of God,Hell,and the judgment seat of Christ.

Ditto my above.

The KJB;if it ain't broke don't fix it..