37818
Well-Known Member
And the evidence for this?
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
The Bible war.
- Thread starter 37818
- Start date
- Status
37818
Well-Known Member
The KJV translators didn't have the NA or UBS either.
So you have no answer to my question?
Would they have consulted them if they did?
Y if you have the inclination, read some of John Burgon's books to see the sources he used when debating W&H RE: The revision to the AV.
Books by Burgon, John William (sorted by popularity)
What I find interesting is that the KJVO claim him for one of the scholars on their side, and yet he was far from that!
37818
Well-Known Member
We might have had a different KJV.
The intent was always, I think, to give the readers a faithful translation of God's word. Note that the KJV translators showed in italics words, when words or interpretation of the translator was added to the text. Most modern versions do not do this. And likely would be in foot notes too. Notes which in later edition of the KJV have dropped. Our modern translations do have foot notes. The lack of applying statistical methods, which the KJV translators didn't have should be of concern regarding the gap in time and the changes now being imposed, ignoring both the gap in time and statisical methods being or not being considered.
37818
Well-Known Member
What canned response from where are you referring to? Otherwise your response makes no sense.
The Nas has italized the added words though!
37818
Well-Known Member
The NASB is not most modern translations.
How so? was translated in 1977, and revised 1995!
37818
Well-Known Member
Both editions use the italics to show words added by the translator. And the 1995 edition has more notes where the translation itself is less literal with the more literal translation or alternate translation is in the margin. Romans 10:10 for example.
And you approve of their decision to do this, correct?
37818
Well-Known Member
The use of italic text to show added words provided, not being part of the actual translation, yes. To let the reader know that.
For example the KJV translator of Mark 14:12 as compared to the KJV translator of Matthew 26:17. The translator of Mark does not show any words added, ". . . And the first day of unleavened bread, when they killed the passover, his disciples said unto him, Where wilt thou that we go and prepare that thou mayest eat the passover?" Whereas the translator of Matthew addes the words "day" and "feast of," ". . . Now the first [day] of the [feast of] unleavened bread the disciples came to Jesus, saying unto him, Where wilt thou that we prepare for thee to eat the passover?" Now it should be noted that the first day of unleavened bread is the 14th of Passover and the first day of the feast unleavened bread of the Passover is the 15th. Not the same day.
Last edited:
With all due respect, I've read the KJV & at least eleven other English Bible translations cover-to-cover & never seen the first word supporting the KJVO myth.
Why does it affect me? As a Christian, I'm to fight any & all false doctrines of faith/worship, & the KJVO myth is as false as they get.
Pastor BOB might think that this is making a mountain out of a molehill, but the KJVO fans have caused division among the ranks, and have caused some to doubt if their version is even to be trusted or approved by God!
37818
Well-Known Member
The division started with the so called critical texts.
ONLY because the KJVO made it so!
- Status