KJVO?

Hey tinytim-

Did you speed-read or mis-read my post in this thread?

After I said: “Some folks make fun of KJVOs because we are said to believe that that KJV is superior to the original manuscripts.
Fundamentally, the KJV is superior to the original manuscripts.

For that matter, the NIV, NASB, ESV, etc. are also superior to the original manuscripts (but not as superior as the KJV!)”,

I went on to say:

“How can that be? Think about it - we don't HAVE the original manuscripts!

Something we have - KJV, NIV, whatever, is far superior to something we don't have - its a matter of practicality.

"Surely" you are aware that we don’t have the “original manuscripts” of the scriptures?

Since NNE ON EARTH has seen the original manuscripts of the scriptures for 1800 years, for anyone to regard them as "superior" yields nothing practical to help you live for the Lord since the original mss are not available for anyone to read or study or obey.

(1) IF you had the original manuscripts of the scriptures, could you read them as easily as you read whichever Bible you currently read?

(2) Is your knowledge of the Greek language so advanced that reading the “original manuscripts” would make you a better Christian?

(3) Wouldn’t God’s commandments and God’s standards in the original manuscripts be just as hard to live up to as they are in the English version you read?

(4) IF you had the original manuscripts, would your friends, relatives and neighbors be better off coming to you to find out what God said (thus making you the authority in their life) or would they be better off trusting their English language copy of the scriptures, which they can hold in their hands and read, without consulting you for guidance?

P.S.
I apologize in advance for calling you "Shirley".

 

Hi rbrent,
You are right in that we do not have the Originals. I believe however that God has preserved the meaning of the Originals in faithful MSS, etc, throughout the centuries, which agree with each other over 98% of the time. I realize some have an issue with the 2% of disagreement. But that 2% disagreement has little if any to do with essential doctrines. Even the "meanest translations" are still God's Word according to the AV translators. Speaking of Originals, the original KJV1611, has persished, so how do you know the KJV you have in your hand, is the same KJV that rolled off the presses in 1611? I'm just asking

 

None of the Bibles are good if they are not read ....no matter the translation. It would be wonderful if Christians would read what they have, so the next time a sermon taken from Joel or Hosea, church members won't have to look in their index.

 

Hello Pastor KevinR-

Of course, you mean that the manuscripts we have agree with each other over 98% of the time,

NOT that 'the originals and the manuscripts we have', agree with each other over 98% of the time.

I believe there are still available, some "original" KJV 1611s, if you have a couple million dollars.

And there are high quality Facsimile Reproductions of the 1611 "original" available from

GREATSITE.COM

I'm thankful I don't have to read the original 1611 - my KJV is NOT in the original Gothic typeface - that would be much harder to read than the Roman typeface in my Cambridge KJV.

LIFELINE PRINTING in Adrian, MI

has an inexpensive hardbound photo reprint of the original 1611 KJV New Testament for $25.00

 

Hey Walls,

You might be interested in the above photographic copy of the 1611 King James. Just a heads up. Buy me one while you are at it.

Jason

 

Yeah Right! Hey if I had that kind of money, I just might pack up my family and come for a visit!!!

 

QS, can you *PROVE* the KJV superior???

 

RBrent, what's wrong with studying the mss we DO have available, to the extent of each of our abilities?

 

Hey there, robycop3...by all means, help "U" self! But for me, the KJBible I've always used, is my guide(or 'straight stick'); all things are checked against its truth.

"He is rich that is satisfied."

 

Give me your "best" translation of Job 24:22 </font>[/QUOTE]So the answer is no, then?

 

rbrent, I now understand what you are saying and it makes sense to me when we are talking practicality. I am just so used to hearing the KJVO say that the KJV is better than the originals. Some even would correct the originals if they were ever to be found.

What I was saying was that no translation is better than the original. All translations of anything lose something in the process of translating. Our differences are the definition of "superior"

BTW I've been called worse

 

Robycop3 said:

Nothing wrong with that at all Robycop3. My brother took Greek at Tennessee Temple and then majored in Greek at Grace Seminary.

At Pensacola Bible Institute, Dr. Ruckman requires all his students who are intellectually able, to take 3 years of Greek and one year of Hebrew, to graduate.

I took Greek at Baptist Bible College but didn't make it my major.

On a practical level, most Christians in most cultures, will not study Greek and yet, can live a life pleasing to God by using whatever Bible is available in their language.

And in our soulwinning work, Greek might be helpful to point out to someone the errors in Watchtower theology but for the most part, handing them an English version and getting them to read aloud the pertinent scriptures, is a great way to lead them to the Lord.

I grew up in Elida/Lima, Ohio. Sure don't miss it at all in the wintertime though. Gotta love Florida, although its gonna be about 25 degrees tonight.

 

My personal translation? Okay, here we go:

He drags the mighty ones with his power. They may raise up, but they have no confirmation in life.

I personally like that version better than the KJV, but I also like the NIV, Amplified, NLV, and ESV. It fits in perfectly with the chapter of Job and is a faithful translation of the Hebrew.

 

The Hebrew does not give the antecedent of the pronoun. I just translated the verse alone.

Asking a question is not a premise. My premise is that the KJV is inferior in several ways, including its original manuscripts, its archaic language, and its sometimes sketchy method of translation.

No. The verse I translated fits in with the rest of the chapter. It doesn't give any doctrinal problems, which is why I am conident it is a valid translation.

Look it us in BDB or Strongs. Drags seems to better show the idea of mighty ones being pulled with power - not a gentle drawing.

 

The same could be said for most, if not all other versions!

 

The same could be said for most, if not all other versions! </font>[/QUOTE]Which is why we cannot place one version alone on its own pedestal and cry out for its perfection and inerrancy. I do believe that translators do their best when they translate, but none of us are perfect. Even the translators of the KJV understood such.