Perfect Translation

I'm still waiting on stillearning to explain to me how he can use an extra-biblical source (a dictionary) to justify a KJVO belief.

Me...a non-KJVO...is being more consistent in my methodology than stilllearning.


Oh, and addressing the "those who hate the KJB" stuff: Many of us use, love, and appreciate the KJV...along with other faithful translations of God's Word. Quit stating falsehoods, please.

 

The problem with this reasoning Winman is that God is incapable of making even these smallest of mistakes. One tiniest flaw would invalidate your Bible just as much as a huge collossal one.

However you cannot know for sure that the Cambridge version is "pure" because the original English archtype perished in a fire.

In addition you have implied that there are those here who hate the KJB.
Not only that you have judged their/our motive and accused them/me of being hypocrites transforming a debate into an ad hominem attack.

It is not the KJB that anyone hates, it is the error that it is only valid English version of the Holy Scriptures that is hated.



HankD

 

Mt 24:35 Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.

Mk 8:38 Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation; of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.

Jh 12:48 He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.

From the above verses it tells us we will be held accountable through his words.
If we will be accountable to him through his word; surely he would preserve his word for us.

 

The phrase νεκρους εγειρετε is included in the TR for Matthew 10:8. It's not in the MT though.

You are correct on your second one as the TR leaves out the word "Lord"

or, should I say that it removes the name of "Lord" from the Bible... I'm going to guess that the "removal" is ok on this point.

 

So, which preservation is for us? 1611? 1823? 1769? Which?

 

Vaticanus and Sinaiticus MSS contained, "of God" where the KJV has this phrase. Is the Christ God?

 

Acts 20:28KJV Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.

Majority Text has " to shepherd the church of the Lord, and of God,"

Where is the "is the Christ God"?

 

Hello rbell

You said.........

I apologize, I didn’t know you were waiting for a response from me.

We were talking about hell, and how the MV’s change it to hades...........
“And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.” (Revelation 20:14 AV)

“Then Death and Hades were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.” (Revelation 20:14 NKJV)

And you said that this was better, because hades is a Greek word.
--------------------------------------------------
My response was that it wasn’t because of what the word hades means in English.....

Hades
Hades (hâ¹dêz) noun
1. Greek Mythology. a. The god of the netherworld and dispenser of earthly riches. b. This netherworld kingdom, the abode of the shades of the dead.

Hell hell (hèl) noun
1. a. Often Hell. The abode of condemned souls and devils in some religions; the place of eternal punishment for the wicked after death, presided over by Satan. b. A state of separation from God.
--------------------------------------------------
The point that I was making is that we speak English, so there should be nothing wrong with using an English Dictionary for Bible words.

Now if a young Christian, that has never heard of a Strong’s concordance, is studying in there Modern Version, and come to the word “hades”, and goes to look it up in his dictionary, he will not get the right idea about hell, from hades.

And I still contend, that Hell is a better choice than Hades.
--------------------------------------------------
You also said........

I don’t remember ever saying anything, about people hating the KJB.
(Please show the source.)

 

Actually, the KJV and the NKJV follow the TR on both, I was thinking backwards. What is happening here is that the TR is following the Alexandrian reading instead of the majority reading.

 

No, he would get the wrong idea from the KJV as it makes no distinction. Nobody is going to read hades in the NT and think of the"The god of the netherworld " Maybe another definition would be better. Words have multiple meanings.

No, because then hell is being used for more than one place. Hell is the lake of fire. The KJV makes no distinction between the two, modern versions do.
That's all the modern versions are doing is using the Greek term there instead of using the same term for two different words. There is a distinction that isn't found in the KJV. Hades is just the Greek word transliterated into English. You see hell when it is speaking of Gehenna

 

Thanks Doc. I think that was part of my question originally, where does the NKJV choose the Alexandrian text that the KJV does not do the same?

 

So are you saying thta God's word was not preserved until 1611 (when the KJV came into being). Does the include the aporcrypha too? What would you suggest before English existed?

What you would do with untranslatable words in the Greek text? There are many.

In the Hebrew text in Genesis 12:1 is a Hebrew word found in the text which has not been translated in English. The word should be translated "for you".

 

Um...I don't remember ever saying "hades" was the better word. You must have me confused with someone else.

My point still stands: You're using a source outside the Bible to determine the better translation. For a KJVO, that should be inconsistent.

My bad. I combined two different thoughts into one post. Others holding your position, not you, have lobbed the "hate the KJB" grenade. That wasn't directed at you.

 

This is a silly argument. Of course God's word was preserved up until 1611, where do you think the translators got the texts to translate the KJB?

Those texts were destroyed centuries ago. So, if God promised to preserve his Word (which he did), then where is it?

And even those texts the KJB translators used were not the original autographs, they were copies. The originals had disappeared centuries before that.

One of the most illogical arguments that those who support the Alexandrian texts use is that the Alexandrian texts are more accurate because they were older. The reason the Received Text was not older is because of constant use, wear and tear. The TR was being used constantly, and so the texts wore out. Copies were made and often the old texts destroyed. The Critical texts on the other hand were sitting unused for centuries. They survived because no one was using them.

And though the TR texts were not as old as the CT, there is much support from early writers going as far back as the 2nd century for the TR, long before the CT. Verses shown only in the TR are quoted by writers much earlier than the CT.

And... it is not absolutely certain that all of the original autographs were in Greek, many scholars believe Matthew was originally written in Hebrew, if so, then the Greek was a translation and a copy.

 

I didn't run away from it, I posted a long aritcle showing dozens of verses, some of which showed the NKJV uses words only found in the Critical Text (see posts #51-54). I asked some here if this was not so and no one denied it.

Hank was honest enough to give a very sincere answer. Look what he wrote.

Notice he says "in most cases" these examples were texts shared by the CT and TR, but not all. So, if I understand him, he is admitting there were examples of the CT used in the NKJV.

If I am wrong and misunderstand him, he can correct me. I am not trying to misrepresent him, this is the understanding I get from what he wrote.

And overall, it is very true and I will admit that the NKJV is based overwhelmingly on the TR. But that is not all there is to the issue. There are many word changes in the NKJV that depart from the English translation of the KJB and give the English translation used in the MVs. So it is also a matter that the NKJV used a different translation method than the KJB. The KJB is primarily based on formal equivalence, while many of the MVs use dynamic equivalence. The translators of the NKJV often used DE where the KJB translators did not, and gave a rendering shown only in the MVs.

Nine of the translators who worked on the NKJV also worked on the NIV. It is obvious to any honest person that they were influenced by their earlier work and translated the NKJV to line up with the MVs in many verses.

You can deny that, but it is obvious to anyone.

 

So the manuscripts that the KJV translators used were destroyed? were they original copies of the manuscripts. Are you sugessting that the "TR" manuscripts before the KJV are now lost?

Yes, which is why textual criticism was necessary.

That's not illogical. The closer something is to the original, the more likely it will not have errors in it.

Suppose I write a paper. I go to my church and have everybody handwrite a copy of that paper. then they take the paper and go around and have others make copies. Which would would be more likely to be more accurate. A 10 generation copy, or one that was closer to the original?

The received text is not older because it was made in the 1500's. Erasmus (using textual criticism) put down what he thought the original said using the manuscripts that he had at the time.

The TR, is not a manuscript like what we usually refer to manuscripts of the Bible being used. The TR is a collection like the Majority text and the NA and the UBS. We still have all the "TR's".

Any evidence for this? They are from a place where they can be preserved longer. You have no evidence that other similar copies were also being used and they were destroyed.

examples?

some believe, but I don't know of any evidence to support this other the speculation.

 

The same false argument presented over and over. This has been addressed many times. The vast majority of the changes made in the KJB over the years were spelling changes. The English language used many different spellings for words back in 1611. We still do today, for example we spell "color" while the English spell "colour". And by far, these are the major changes in the KJB, spelling was standardized.

There was a change of font as we say today from Gothic to Roman. Big deal.

There were corrections to typographical errors. The very fact they were spotted and corrected shows an infallible standard existed.

There were very few textual changes, and none which affect doctrine. The KJB of today is basically the same exact Bible that was published in 1611.

However, the NKJV is not simply a KJB with modern words used to replace archaic ones. There are over 2,000 words omitted from the KJB in the NKJV in the NT alone, it is not the same scriptures whatsoever.

 

I find this interesting. Could you tell me who they were so I can investigate it further please?

 

Basically, but not exactly - so was it perfect in 1611 or some other time? One mistake, no matter what kind of mistake, means it is not perfectly, jot and tittle perfect.

Where is your perfectly jot and tittle perfect KJT of the Bible with no mistakes of any kind?

Could you kindly visit this thread please and give your input?

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=66776