I grew up with the KJV. My memory verses are KJV. Lately though, I'm finding I tire of all the thees and thous as well as the archaic, often misleading olde english phraseology. I find myself consulting the NIV more and more for understanding what the text is saying.
In my studies of translations the argument comes down to the choice of source manuscripts. Either the Textus Receptus or the so-called Critical Text. Eventually the argument employed by adherents of the TR is that the Critical Text (sometimes called the Alexandrian Texts) are "corrupt" or they are "flawed."
Question: Why are these texts "corrupt"?
(Please don't make a list of verses or parts of verses that are in the KJV and not in the modern translations. That only shows there is a difference in the manuscripts which I already know.)
Question for KJV Fans
Discussion in 'Bible Versions & Translations' started by InTheLight, Jan 3, 2011.
Page 1 of 3
-
InTheLight Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
Well, I'm not a KJV "fan" (I'm thinking you're thinking of more of the KJVO camp) but I do use the KJV and have high regard for it and think it's an awesome translation, if a bit dated in it's language. But I'd say the answer to the question really comes down to "because it doesn't fully agree with the KJV". Oftentimes we see the KJV being the measuring stick and I think there is a large flaw in that sort of thinking. :)
-
Here is a webpage The Significance of the Scribal Corruptions to the New Testament Text that may shed some light on your question.
Most people do not understand what is meant by the phrase "corrupted text." However, this is a pretty big issue and has been around for some time. Google and you should find lots of stuff. The seminary guys who hang out here can also tell you about the issue, as they probably have studied it in several courses. The key, in my opinion, is to study the issue without bias toward either the KJB or the modern versions.
Really good question to ask!
By the way, please send me a personal message if you have an interest in astronomy or moon exploration (as your avatar might suggest)?
...Bob -
InTheLight Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
Modern translations strive to do put the Bible in the common english in use today and I think they succeed.
Typically the knock used by KJVO people is that the Critical Text is corrupt.
"Why is it corrupt? "
"Because it is."
"Why?"
"It just is..." -
InTheLight Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
-
InTheLight Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
Since the TR is the manuscript most copied throughout the church era and the Critical Text is older than the TR and less frequently copied, my only conclusion is that the TR would be more prone to the corruption stated in this article. -
Here is a book some think is the definitive book on the subject: The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration (Bruce, M. Metzger, 4th Ed., 2005). 31 reviews at Amazon.
...Bob -
I am a big fan of the KJV, but it is not my exclusive translation.
I prefer the traditional text body because the critical texts were off the scene for so long. To rely on them to me means that we spent 1200 years without accurate texts to translate from.
Do I consider them corrupt? No.
Do I consider the traditional texts superior? Yes. -
InTheLight Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
With these facts in mind, why do you consider the traditional texts superior? -
-
InTheLight Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
InTheLight Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
Here's an interesting example between the KJV and NKJV, which use the same text, that illustrates the KJV translators insertion of words (emphasis mine):
Matt 24:24For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect. [KJV]
24:24 For false christs and false prophets will rise and show great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect. [NKJV]
But I don't want to get sidetracked. I'm interested in hearing from people that can explain why they believe the Alexandrian texts are corrupted. -
-
-
-
The question I have proposed before and will again: Where were all the fancy translations when we were fighting liberalism? Where were they when we were defending the faith from 1925-1960's?
The KJV served us very well in those years.
I have nothing against any translation. They all have something to offer, but I still prefer my KJV. I preach from it, and teach from it, and will continue to do so to my dying day.
So, don't die on my watch, cos, I will bury your body by it.. (smile)
Cheers,
Jim -
I'm not an expert on it but I do have a copy of the NA-27 and have read the introduction from an english section in the front of it. I've read many arguments for the Bibles from the NA-27 and none of them were friendly at all. If you use the KJV exclusively you will be labled a Bible worshiper.
If perhaps you don't believe what I said about this you can always go to a library and look at a NA-27 your self. You will also see in the introduction that the Pope of the Catholic Church had to approve it before it went to press.
MB -
"KJV fans?" I still have an old KJV, but I think the pages are too small to make very effective fans with.
-
InTheLight Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
"Why is it corrupt? "
"Because it is."
"Why?"
"It just is..."
So I ask again, WHY are the Alexandrian Texts considered corrupt?
Page 1 of 3