Modern Version Only sect

A translation is sound if it accurately translates the text.

Scripture tells us that the written words of scripture in the original language were given by God exhaling. The more the original meaning of the text comes through in a translation, the sounder that translation is.

And that's how we ought to be judging translations. How accurate is it to the God-breathed texts it translates? Does it clearly express the gist of the text in the original language?

 

Absolutely, great answer! This is the bottom line. Either the translation carries forth the message of the originals or it does a bad job.

This does not have to get into which manuscript set it uses, as long as it is one that is accepted (for instance the NKJV uses the TR for the NT--that's okay, and it is noted, where as the NIV uses another set.) The Old Testament is not so much of an issue. This gives people a choice of their preferred underlying text.

Notice that I am not picking one over the other, just saying that it would be nice for the translator to indicate what the underlying manuscripts are. Most main-stream translations do a good job of this.

 

I've never heard of just an MVO. I personally only have one KJV and it's a part of a parallel bible that is comprised of the KJV, Amplified, NASB, and NIV. My other bibles include the NKJV study bible, NIV study bible, Good News for Modern Man NT, and a fairly new translation called God's Word. If I'm just reading from the bible I like to use my God's Word version for the ease of reading the word. I tend to get tripped up reading the KJV, but it sounds most normal when the pastor is quoting scripture!

 

Ziggy and Bluefalcon,

It appears to me that you are really trying to defend the Byzantine text-type over the Alexandrian text-type by citing a few examples where the Byzantine readings appear to you to be obviously the better readings, but that you are doing so by coming in through the back door using the term “modern versions” rather than the term Alexandrian text-type, and that by doing so you are getting many people confused.

Am I right here, or am I among the many people whom you have confused?

 

The problem here is the sublime fact that we do not have the originals. What we do have (or at least some of us) is a conviction as to the criteria by which to determine the mss which best represent the originals.

IMO this has been the issue all along.

Wescott and Hort started/represent one school of thought (Alexandrian mss), John Burgon and Scrivener represent another (Traditional Text mss). In terms of evidence: without the originals either view is valid whether we can bring ourselves to admit that fact or not.

The Ruckman brand of KJVOism however represents a position so far out in left field that IMO is it out of the ball park. These kinds of errors must be exposed.

HankD

 

CBS: "It appears to me that you are really trying to defend the Byzantine text-type over the Alexandrian text-type ... but that you are doing so by coming in through the back door using the term “modern versions” rather than the term Alexandrian text-type, and that by doing so you are getting many people confused.

I fail to see the confusion, since the posts addressed are generally places where various English translations read differently based upon their differing underlying texts. This is *far* more of a serious issue than most discussions that concern the KJV having a certain English rendering of an identical underlying Greek word that differs in other MVs.

My point is to demonstrate that there are *two* separate issues involved here, and that these need to be kept distinct (and yes, my own views regarding certain text-critical criteria will show up in my own comments at various points; for this I make no apology).

Otherwise, I concur with gb, who earlier stated:

gb: "I don't always agree with the TR nor do I always agree with the UBS and NA texts. But if I completely threw out the differences it would make no difference in my living the Christian life and making disciples."

And otherwise further, I differ from HankD (who generally is a TBS TR person), who stated:

HankD: "In terms of evidence: without the originals either view is valid whether we can bring ourselves to admit that fact or not."

If either view were equally valid, then we might as well abandon altogether the matter of text-critical theory and practice. This I am not willing to do. But I do insist on keeping basic translational issues separate from text-critical variant issues.