KJV is well loved and used

Earth to Pastor Sam. Earth to Pastor Sam. Come in please. Earth to Pastor Sam.

I still have not seen your response to my question regarding your blanket statement concerning modern bible translations. Just click here.

KJV is well loved and used

 

Just as UBS 1 differs from UBS 2 which differs from UBS 3 which differs from UBS 4 which differs from UBS 5.

Just as NA 1 differs from NA 2 which differs from NA 3 which differs, and so on through NA 28.

The point is, of course, that the various TRs (around 30 of them) are (flawed) representatives of the Byzantine Textform just as is the Majority Text (H&F). Thinking that those differences invalidate the text forms is rather naive.

 

A fair point, Doc. But it doesn't apply equally.

I don't know anyone who prefers the CT who believes that any attempted reconstruction of the text is perfect. And they are not especially bothered by the fact that NA 28 is different from NA 3. Just like I don't any MT text advocates going hammer and tong about one of the two major MTs being a tool of the devil. Even TR advocates admit there are variants within the tradition.

But KJVO-onlyism requires that the KJV translators selected the original reading in every case and that they then perfectly translated each word or phrase. Thus they cannot really be TR folks; the particular (and sometimes peculiar) choices of the KJV translators created a special form of the TR, the true text that cannot be deviated from.

 

I will respond only to your first paragraph. The other two are not on topic to what I am talking about.

Every text of the New Testament differs from every other text, so the singling out of the TR is unwarranted except to counter a KJVO argument, and even then it is best to admit there are variants in all Greek Texts.

And as to being equal, let's move back to the Greek manuscripts for a moment. The primary foundation for the eclectic texts are, among others, Aleph and B, which differ from each other over 3000 times in the Gospels alone.

I don't find that at all troubling, but nevertheless, it is a fact.

As I said in my earlier post, there are over 30 TRs, all different. But all still representing (in their own flawed way) the Byzantine textform which I believe is most likely to represent the autographs.

When I got out of seminary I was using UBS 2, and understood the best methodology of textual criticism to be the "reasoned eclecticism" which has produced NA/USB. I have now reconsidered that opinion, largely though the writings and personal conversations with Dr. Maurice Robinson, and although I am a neophyte compared to him, I agree with his "reasoned transmissionalism" even though I am far far less knowledgeable than he. (He has forgotten more than I will ever know on the subject.) I wholeheartedly recommend his The Greek New Testament for Beginning Readers: Byzantine Textform & Verb Parsing.

Well, I have rambled enough. Good night.

 

Thanks for responding, Doc.

I have nothing but respect for Dr. Robinson. I respect all committed Christians who are attempting to recover the words of the autographs. That's because they believe the words are important because they define our faith.

Burgon and Scrivener, Wescott, Daniel Wallace, to name a few. They were all motivated by the belief that the word of God matters and it's important to get it right. Some are wrong in their selections, but they all believed the right words matter.

Some are willing to take the time and effort needed in their efforts. Others have no idea what they are doing. I'm sure we could agree on a number of those.

I can read the KJV and be edified. I can read any number of modern translations — including some loose ones — and be edified. The majesty of the Bible transcends our poor human efforts. There are, of course travesties that reflect sectarianism, and they should be avoided.

"For I decided not to know anything among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified," Paul said. That is the essence of the Christian faith. All else is just gloss.

 

Sam, the lazy man way is making a blanket condemnation of the English bibles and not being willing to back up your claim with facts. You keep dodging the question.

Sam, I am still waiting for your response to my post on page 1 of this thread.

I then asked:
"But aren't you doing the same thing, Sam by saying

You have not demonstrated, using your own original exegesis, that all, or even any, modern translations are watered down. You seem to be repeating what others have said. Like some Democrats.

So, Sam, are you going to be honest and answer the question or are you going to be a "Democrat?"