Featured KJV vs the original Greek

That would be elevating the Kjv to being like an Idol!

 

Some even have gone as far to claim thre Logos in John can refer to the Kjv, so they see it as Muslims do Koran!

 

How close are the TR/MT and Bzt to each other?

 

Apples and oranges, John.
The original manuscripts of the AV aren't preserved for us, and definitely not in the same way that God's words are preserved for every generation of His children... so that they may take comfort in the Scriptures.

God's providence didn't include a translation, it included His every word.
I just happen to believe that the AV is far more trustworthy and accurate as an English translation, than anything currently in print.
Unlike most "KJV-Only" types, I'm less concerned about the translation than I am with what's going on behind the scenes.

Here's a thought for you:

Why all the confusion with regard to English translations ( and now branching out to other ones, like the French in 1902 and the Spanish around that same time ) in the last 150 years, John?
God is not the author of confusion in His churches...we know who that is.


But for comparison's sake and in case that didn't get your attention, here is an example of the confusion ( not that any of you have not seen this before ):

" In these lay a great multitude of impotent folk, of blind, halt, withered, waiting for the moving of the water.
4 For an angel went down at a certain season into the pool, and troubled the water: whosoever then first after the troubling of the water stepped in was made whole of whatsoever disease he had.
5 And a certain man was there, which had an infirmity thirty and eight years." ( John 5:3-5, AV ).

" In these lay a multitude of invalids—blind, lame, and paralyzed.
5 One man was there who had been an invalid for thirty-eight years." ( John 5:3-5, ESV )

Do you see any differences of note, or do they read exactly the same?
I think they are markedly different.
But most people on this forum who post on this subject, think there is no problem... even when I put the same passages side by side, and then ask them, "which ones are GOD'S words?"

It's like they do a "huh?", and keep right on going.

Does it concern you that a Book that so many people who came before us and trusted each and every word on the page ( Matthew 4:4, Luke 4:4 ), has changed in some way?
I don't know about you, but it does me.

Do you realize that I've had people tell me that to them, there is no difference...
That no "major doctrines" ( there are no "major" or "minor" doctrines in God's word ) have been changed, or some such line of thinking...
But these same people would notice a $1.00 difference in their paychecks from week to week, or they take note and make a fuss over something a politician said on TV, and hang on their every word, pointing out what they said and whether or not it is accurate?

A very strange series of events, wouldn't you say?

So , my question to you as a translator is, is this problem one of manuscripts, translation technique, or both?
I say "both".

Honestly, and for the life of me, I cannot figure out how a person can read both of those passages and think it's "no big deal" ( not that you personally do ) when something is dramatically shorter ( or longer, depending upon how one looks at it ) than the other one and very much "summarized" ( or drawn out in greater detail ) when compared to the other.

Then, when they ask their pastor or someone else about that difference, the same reply is given...
"Don't worry about it, it's no big deal", or, "the KJV is in error".
That last one I really love.

Finally, to me, the question is and always should be, "which ones are the Lord's words?"
Hint:

It's not "both".

 

Then it's a good thing I don't do that, isn't it?
The Lord is my God, not a translation of the Bible.

But since you don't see a problem Dave, why all the effort at trying to persuade others that there's no problem?
To me, you keep throwing in one-liners that emphasize your position, and ask questions that seem to point people to the conclusion that there's been much ado about nothing, but you keep replying with the same arguments and comments.

"There's nothing to be concerned about."

I understand your position...
From my perspective, you don't seem to care if it says different things in different ways, because to you, not every word is important, is it?
Or are they?

Have I misunderstood what you've been trying to tell me over the past year and a half?
If I have, then please accept my apologies.

If not, then I'm sorry to offend, but to me, I care about what it says.
Each and every word.

Why?

" But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God." ( Matthew 4:4 ).

Do you see the significance of that statement as a believer?
It's not just a few words, or every other word that we live by and take comfort in, or that we count on for an accurate "picture" of who God is and what He's done for us...

We trust every word.
Without each and every word, we're missing out on bits and pieces of vital information that He has intended for us to know, as God's children.

 

The 1611 edition of the KJV would fail to meet your own claimed qualification or requirement for having "every word" according to the KJV translators themselves. According to marginal notes in the 1611 edition of the KJV, the KJV translators freely acknowledged that they did not provide or present an English word in their text for every original-language word of Scripture in their underlying texts. In some cases, they provided an English word for those original-language words in their marginal notes, but not in the text of the verse. According to your own assertion, the 1611 KJV would not measure up to what is necessary to be claimed to be God's providence. Actual verifiable facts would contradict any claim that the KJV is an every-word translation.

In addition, the 1611 edition of the KJV does not include over 150 words that are found in most typical post-1900 editions of the KJV.

A consistent, just application of your own stated assertion would in effect contradict your claims for the KJV. According to your own claim concerning the KJV, it would seem that every original-language word of Scripture is not important enough to have an English word for it in the translation.

 

Human, inconsistent, non-scriptural KJV-only reasoning would result in confusion with regard to English Bible translations.

KJV-only advocates have not cleared up claimed confusion, but instead they have caused more confusion.

I have likely read a majority [perhaps even 90% or more] of books by KJV-only authors, and I have examined and considered their claims and arguments. I have not found one KJV-only book or website that presents a positive, clear, consistent, sound, true, scriptural case for a modern KJV-only view. I have read the KJV, and it does not teach a KJV-only view.

 

I do not see you asking and applying that question consistently and justly so that means that your question does not support your claims.

Perhaps you do not actually ask that question when there are the same-type differences between the pre-1611 English Bibles of which the KJV was a revision and the 1611 KJV. Do the actual verifiable facts of actual textual differences and many translation differences in the pre-1611 English Bibles mean that they are not the Lord's words according to a consistent, just application of your assertion so that at least over 50 percent of the English words that the Church of England makers of the KJV borrowed or took from them were not the Lord's words? You do not deal with the fact that the makers of the KJV borrowed a good number of renderings from the 1582 Roman Catholic Rheims New Testament.

You do not demonstrate that you ask and apply that question justly to actual cases where the English words in the KJV do not match word-for-word all the preserved original-language words of Scripture.

 

Pretty close.

 

It is not a apples and oranges comparison to bring up the fact that the original, handwritten text prepared by the KJV translators themselves for the printers has been lost or destroyed just as the original original-language manuscripts of Scripture no longer exist.

KJV-only advocates cannot prove with absolute 100% certainty what every word of the text prepared by the KJV translators was.

The printed 1611 edition may differ from that handwritten text [whether it was a completely handwritten manuscript or a printed edition of the 1602 Bishops' Bible with the changes made by the KJV translators written on it] in a number of places. All the later changes/revisions/corrections to the 1611 edition may not always be restoring the intended text of the KJV translators themselves since sometimes the later printers/editors could be departing from it. Some of the later changes may not have been merely correction of errors assumed to be introduced by the printers since some of them could have been changing the actual words of the text prepared by the KJV translators.

 

You mean the Bible in Greek & Hebrew and the Bible in English are "apples and oranges," not the same Word of God? Forgive me, but that is an ignorant statement. If it's the Word of God in Greek (and it is) then it is the Word of God in English. If the Greek is accurately translated, it is the Word of God. You have to obey it whatever language it is in. In the Greek, Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος. In the English, "In the beginning was the Word." Same truth.

I agree if you limit this to the original (languages). And I note that you said "providence" and not "miracles." Nothing perfect can occur on earth without a miracle, and the giving of Scriptures by inspiration was a miracle.

This is ambiguous. What do you mean? Are you talking about God's providence?

Why stop with French and Spanish? There are literally 1000's of languages in the world. Why leave out Japanese?

Here's my view. We fundamentalists have missed the boar. God wants His word in every language in the world. We have spent so much time arguing about the KJV and preservation that not much effort is being made by Fundamentalists in the area of missionary Bible translation. The evangelicals (Wycliffe, New Tribes, etc.) have far outdone us. We should be ashamed. This is why I admire Bearing Precious Seed. While other fundamentalists are arguing about preservation, they are doing God's work and sending out literally millions of Bibles in other languages into the world.

What, like I didn't already know this?

This is ambiguous. Are you talking about the KJV? Do you dare say it has never changed? What, never heard of the

I will go further. Every one of the following has been providentially preserved by God in all of the Greek texts:

1. Every single doctrine is preserved in the Scriptures on earth (2 Cor. 3:6).
2. Every single name of Christ is preserved in the Word on earth (Ps. 138:2).
3. Every single event of Scripture is preserved in the Word on earth.
4. Every single prophecy of Scripture is preserved on earth (Matt. 5:17-18). Note that v. 18 is specifically about the law and prophets.
5. God preserves the power of Scripture on earth (Heb. 4:12)
6. Every presentation of the Gospel in the New Testament is preserved (Rev. 14:6). It is everlasting.

​

I agree.

So, if you believe that the KJV is absolutely without error, then idolatry is okay, right? We should never attack false gods, because the KJV says, "Thou shalt not revile the gods" (Ex. 22:28).

The Word of God, the "words" (hrema) of God, were given in the original languages, and the Word (logos) of God can be preserved in translation to the exact extent that it is an accurate translation.

 

Well said.

 

I recently translated a tract about the coronavirus into Japanese. Then I had my Japanese proofreader make some corrections. Then it was given by the original authors to another Japanese man to look at, and he made more corrections. Tell me, which is the authentic, humanly inspired version of the tract, the original English, my first draft translation, the corrected version of that, or the revision by the other Japanese man? Almost anyone (certainly any translator or linguist) would say the authority rests in the original manuscript, which I was sent in a Word file by email. Except, the KJVO theory, holding that the authority is in a translation, would have to choose between one of the three different Japanese versions. How in the world do you accomplish that choice?

Likewise, at what point was the KJV inspired? When the rough draft was handwritten into a manuscript (no longer extant)? When the various committees corrected the rough draft (again a handwritten manuscript, not extant)? When the final handwritten manuscript (of however many) was done (not extant any more)? When the printer printed up the book version? When it started being printed with the "s" symbol instead of the "f" symbol? When the printers typos were fixed? When it was revised in the 18th century?

WHEN? I MUST KNOW OR I HAVE NO BIBLE!!! (Not)

 

You have NO proof that the TR is closest to the originals, nor that Kjv is the best translation!

 

Their rejection of the Nkjv as being not even a real Kjv is all we need to know!

 

Ever Greek text in use by Translators fulfill your 6 points, regardless if Mt Ct TR etc, and just wonder if KJVO would just prefer all translations be based off Kjv itself, and would prefer that if translations not based off either KJV or TR, not be made at all for missions?

 

Which TR is right, and which KJV ?

 

That does describe the most radical ones.

 

You tell me.