Perfect Translation

Perhaps I am wrong, but it seems to me that I read long ago that the texts the KJB translators used were destroyed in a fire. I will do a seach and see if I can locate this information.

Yes, it is illogical to simply presume because the CT is older, that it is more accurate. The Sinaiticus and Vaticanus were sitting unused for centuries. Why were they unused? Most believe because they were known to be corrupt.

The TR on the other hand was widely used. The texts wore out from constant use. Copies had to be made. So at the time the KJB was translated, yes, these texts were not as old as the CT.

However, there is much evidence for the TR much earlier than the CT. Verses shown only in the TR and not in the CT are quoted by church fathers going back to the 2nd and 3rd centuries.

Look it up, this is known fact.

 

Well, the original English manuscript of the KJT was destroyed in a fire.

 

You are incredible. You demand jot and tittle perfection from the KJB. First of all, there is no such thing as the jot and tittle in English. Any translator who translates from one language to another must add words to convey the concise meaning. That is not an issue, both the translators of the KJB and the MVs had to do this.

Even still, you strain at a gnat and swallow a camel. You go ballistic over a comma in 1st John, but have no problem with thousands of words, dozens of verses, and even whole passages omitted in the MVs.

 

You are the one who claims you have a perfectly perfect translation - all I would like to do is to see you substantiate your claim.

I know that no translation is perfectly perfect. You say you have one. Is your translation perfectly perfect or not?

BTW, you have never heard me on the MVs, have you?

 

Picking up on something from yesterday WM, do you agree with the brilliant scholars who translated the KJT of the Bible that there is benefit in studying a variety of translations, or were they wrong on that?

 

Gonna have to leave this thread - I can sense my spirit degenerating. Apologies.

 

Not quite.

There's a few things missing- like 'THE TRANSLATORS TO THE READER. Preface to the King James Version 1611' and something we call the 'Apocrypha'. Also something called 'textual notes' or 'optional readings'.

That in and of itself, regardless of other textual changes, makes your modern KJV a REVISION. It's not identical to the 1611 in any way, shape or form.

 

But the texts were not KJB. In fact English did not exist until much later. So the KJB is not the preservation of God's word but simply a translation at best. In all translations of any document there is loss.

 

And as per your post you linked, I have no problem with the translators of the KJB recommending people to consult other sources. These were very humble men, they did not consider themselves holy prophets. They did the very best job they could do with the texts they had.

What you and others seem to fail to realize is that God governs the affairs of men. God did not withdraw up into heaven when John penned the Book of Revelation, he is still at work here on earth. In fact, the Book of Revelation shows there is a great work of God to take place on this earth in the sight of men coming.

If you read the scriptures, the prophets themselves had a very humble view of themselves. Moses said he was slow of speech, Jeremiah declared himself to be a child. But God used them.

And this is just a personal opinion, it is a matter of faith, but I believe God used the KJB translators in the same way. No, they did not receive revelation from God as Moses and Jeremiah did, they were not prophets.

But I believe God was leading the true church out of the slavery and blindness that had held them under the RCC. It was not just the men who translated the KJB, but the many men who came before them, who led the way, who gave their lives. I believe all of this was God leading the true church out of darkness.

And history shows this. Isn't it an amazing coincidence that at the very same time the KJB was translated that England became the world's first true global superpower. It was said that the sun never sat on the English empire, and that was true. England was on every continent, and in practically every nation, and took the KJB along with them. And then a little later, the United States came to be. And again, the U.S. sent missionaries throughout the world taking the Word of God to the nations. And by far, the KJB was the dominant Bible used by both England and the U.S.A..

Now, maybe that doesn't mean much to you, but I see this as God at work today.

Now, you could argue that the MVs are also a work of God. I would disagree, but you are entitled to your opinion. I see the MVs as introducing division into the church, not furthering the gospel. But again, that is only my opinion.

So, the translators of the KJB were very sincere, honest, and humble men. No way would they dare claim they were being used by God.

But I believe they were.

 

I don't think you are really thinking this out. Did Jesus speak Greek? Did Peter and John speak Greek? Actually, it is possible that they may have, but the evidence from scriptures is that they spoke Aramaic. So the Greek texts themselves are a translation, which proves a translation can be exact and not lose the true meaning of the original language.

Oh, I know what you will say, you will say, "Yes, but that was God who was doing the translating, he can translate without a loss of true meaning."

You may not say that, but others have said that before.

Well, if God can translate from one language to another without losing the exact meaning, then why can't man?

 

Well, it is true that a lot of the specific texts were destroyed, but we have other copies.

But that isn't the case. Being older is a heave weight in determining the original reading. The older argument isn't illogical just as the majority argument isn't illogical. they are both good arguments. You side with majority, I side with oler.

First, 0 evidence that they thought they were corrupt. Also, the Sinaiticus wasn't discovered till the 1800's. the Vaticanus was held by the Catholic church so it wans't accessitible. Erasmus didn't reject the Viticanus. He contacted his friend Bombasius to get some readings from the Vaticanus, but wasn't able to get a copy of the Vaticanus. He didn't reject it.

Again, the TR is a Greek text that is put together by consulting different manuscripts. Erasmsus did it first in the 1500's. The manuscripts that underline it were very small in number and late in age. What you might be meaning to say is the byzantine manuscripts were widely used.

Well, the TR is older than the CT. TR in the 1500's and the CT 1800's. But the manuscripts that underline the CT are older and the TR are later.

Which readings are you referring to in the TR? Don't tell me to look it up, if you have evidence, supply it please. It sounds like another statement that is misleading.

 

Greek was the trade language of the day. It is obvious that the Greek text is not a translation but rather written by men whose mother tongue was not Greek. The sentence construction in Greek is obviously that of men who spoke Hebrew and Aramaic. It is much like someone who speaks Spanish and the tries to write something in English that does not know English very well.

 

Of course! they did the best they could do and they did a good job.

Nobody is saying that God "withdraws up into heaven" and leaves us alone. (ok, well some do but not here in this discussion) I'm sure that that KJV translators prayed for God to help this in their translation. This doesn't mean that God keeps anybody from error. Only the original writers of the Scriptures were kept from making errors. God never promised to keep copyist from errors or translators from errors. I'm also sure the NIV, NASB, ESV and the NKJV translators prayed for God to guide them in their translation. But that doesn't mean that God kept them from error.

Of course, but I'm pretty sure the original writers of Scripture knew what they were doing. The many references of "thus says the Lord" shows they knew they were writing divine words.

So you believe that God helped them. Of course! I wouldn't deny that, but God didn't keep them from error. That is why they made a few mistakes along the way.

Praise the Lord for having a wonderful translation of Scripture at a time that missions was strong. But that doesn't mean the KJV is somehow a perfect translation.

And your opinion is based on what? It's the kjvo's that are causing division. (Not the KJV, the kjvo's). The divisions are causes when somebody tries to put one translation as perfect and causes others names.

Also, it isn't that the KJV was being used or a MV being used, it was the Bible being used. The translation had nothing to do with missions.

the writers of Scripture did. Paul did. Were they prideful then?

Guided by being kept from error, or helped like he helps his other children today?

 

Yes, Jesus very, very likely was speaking Aramaic.

God can translate perfectly. It's the language, not the translator that has limits.

I'm sure men can, but what is talked about is that English isn't like Greek. There are things lost when you translate from one language to another language. NOT because of the TRANSLATOR, but because of the LANGUAGE.


one thing that is interesting is that when Matthew, Mark and Luke have "camel to go through the eye of a needle" Matthew and Mark use the Greek term for a sewing needle and Luke uses a surgical needle. This is very likely because Jesus said it in Aramaic and not Greek. The writers for Scripture, under the guidance of the Scripture being guided to all truth, were writing using their own experiences. The writing styles of the writers was not lost. Luke is using his own experience. Which one is right? Both.

 

Well see, now you are arguing against yourself. The texts the KJB translators used were copies, they were not the original autographs. If you believe in preservation, that doesn't mean the original autographs need to survive, no, they wear out with time and use. Preservation is accomplished through accurate copies. Do you believe when Jesus stood up and read Isaiah in Capernaum that he was actually reading the very texts penned by Isaiah? Of course not. If the originals existed at all, they would have been in Jerusalem, not Capernaum.

Older can mean closer to the originals and more accurate. But it isn't absolute proof. The V & S only survived because they weren't being used. The TR on the other hand was being passed around to hundred of churches, copies were being made. They wore out from constant use and new copies had to be made. So yes, the texts the KJB translators used weren't nearly as old as the V & S, but that does not prove they were not accurate copies of the original autographs.

You have to be kidding. I could show you 20 sites right now that show that the V & S disagreed with each other in thousands of words and verses. The Sinaiticus was full of obvious errors and there is evidence that many different authors penned it. And these errors are freely admitted by men who support the V & S.

So, this statement of yours is incredibly false.

 

No, you didn't misrepresent me Winman.

My "beef" is that these similarities are due to the fact that the chosen words are the best words no matter who the translator is, no matter their background and/or past work history.

Whether by coincidence or design is not the real underlying question.

The real and underlying question is if there was some sort of satanic conspiracy to corrupt the word of God. I think not.

Let me give you some more facts since you have disparaged at least some of the NKJV translators and their background.

Some of the Anglo-Catholic scholars who worked on the 1611 AV were sympathetic to and even "closet" Roman Catholics.

They believed in not just pado-baptism but baptismal regeneration, the "sacrifice" of the mass, prayers for the dead, the office of "bishop", inclusion of Vulgate passages, inclusion of the Apocrypha etc, etc...

This influence is present even today in the Church of England, some of their local churches who use the AV (authorized to be read in the churches) still call the Eucharist Celebration "The Mass".

This is also true of some local churches in it's American counterpart, the Episcopal Church.

This I say because you spoke of "influences" to the NKJV by some of the translators of the NKJV.

Well, there were some who worked on the AV translation who were not so heterodox in their doctrine, in fact they were heretics by our baptistic doctrinal standards.

To be fair IMO you must allow that lattitude for the KJV and other translators including the NIV, NASV, etc.

You should not have an inconsistent standard of measurement.
A greater requirement for the NKJV.
A lesser measurement for the KJV.

Deuteronomy 25

13 Thou shalt not have in thy bag divers weights, a great and a small.
14 Thou shalt not have in thine house divers measures, a great and a small.
15 But thou shalt have a perfect and just weight, a perfect and just measure shalt thou have: that thy days may be lengthened in the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.
16 For all that do such things, and all that do unrighteously, are an abomination unto the LORD thy God.​

If there is clear cut evidence of evil and the motivation clearly present, then that is a different matter.

The KJV has both omitted and added to the original language of the word of God.

True, it is up to each to evaluate what their toleration will allow.

But to bring an indictment against the NKJV (for instance) for doing what one allows the KJV translators to do is not right IMO.

HankD

 

Hank

First, I want to thank you for your sincerety and honesty. It is wonderful. I will listen to a person like you. I might not agree, but I will listen because I know you are being honest and sincere. So once again, Thanks! :thumbsup:

Now, I don't know the hearts of men, only God knows that. But we know the scriptures warn of men who would corrupt the scriptures. They are out there, and they are on BOTH sides of this question.

2 Cor 2:17 For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ.

Even in Paul's day there were MANY who corrupted the word of God. So you can bet there are many today.

Thank you again for your honest answer. I hope all those who claim there are no Critical Texts in the NKJV will see your answer.

But I would disagree with you that the words the NKJV used were the "best" words. Here are some examples where it is very difficult to defend these word choices as "best".

KJB-

Acts 4:27 For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together,

NKJV

Acts 4:"For truly against Your holy Servant Jesus, whom You anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the people of Israel, were gathered together

There is a big difference between being God's child, his Son, and being his servant. Moses was a holy servant, as were all the prophets. Jesus was not just a servant, he was God's Son. And this is not the only instance, there are numerous times where the NKJV changes Son of God to Servant of God.

KJB

Acts 3:26 Unto you first God, having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities.

NKJV-

Acts 3:26 To you first, God, having raised up His Servant Jesus, sent Him to bless you, in turning away every one [of you] from your iniquities."

In my opinion, the NKJV diminishes who Jesus is. He is God, not just a servant.

This may be so, but the translators of the KJB did not omit Acts 8:37 as the authors of many of the MVs did.

Acts 8:37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

There is not a greater verse in all of scriptures that shows Baptismal Regeneration a false doctrine. Yet, the KJB translators did not omit this verse. You cannot convince me that they didn't realize this verse a strong argument against baptizing babies, that would be incredible to believe. But they were honest and included this verse because that is what the texts show.

But how about the MVs? Do they include this verse? Some do, but the majority don't.

 

The NKJV includes Acts 8:37 (as well as 1 John 5:7) because it is part of the families of the Traditional Text type (Although the Majority Text omits both).

Also the Catholic Douay-Rheims includes this verse and they are the father of baptismal regeneration. So this is probably why the Anglo-Catholic Church included it because their parent, the Church of Rome included it in their Bible.

In fact, if you can get your hands on a Rheims NT (Catholic English translation) you will find over 90% word-for-word agreement with the KJV.
Many passages are word for word the same.

However the Rheims NT was published in 1582 almost 30 years before the 1611 KJV.

Who copied who?

HankD