The Underlying Texts

Historical Facts or God's Promise to preserve His Word in Any Language !

I am not “King James OnlyIf “King James Only” defines one who believes the preserved Word of God is only in English, .” The Masoretic Hebrew Old Testament and Greek Received New Testament translated properly into any language is the preserved Word of God in that language, whether it is ,German, French, Korean,Spanish or Nepali:FYI, there is a list of Received-text based translations in the “Directory of Foreign Language Literature” at the Way of Life web site. Call me “King James Only;”If it defines one who believes that God has given inerrant Scripture in the original Greek and Hebrew writings and that He has preserved them in the Hebrew Masoretic and Greek Received Text underlying the King James Bible and other Reformation Bibles and that we have an accurate translation of it in the English language in the Authorized Version! Amen:Fish:

 

I wonder when Dr. Bob will return to give his answer! I can't wait!!!!:tongue3:




:type: Hint: my guess it's the modern eclectic Greek NT texts like the UBS4 and N/A 27th.....

 

I don't know what Dr. Bob will choose, but I have not seen anything to dissuade me that the majority text would logically be the most accurate.

Unfortunately, most English translations are based on N/A or W/H not Majority.

 

No you don't.

Doc doesn't operate under the delusion that the KJV translators were perfect in their work even though he rightly defends their scholarship and efforts. Further, I don't think Doc would deny that the men who do translation work on MV's are for the most part highly qualified and scholarly people.

He does disagree with some of their opinions but I doubt that he automatically doubts their sincerity, honesty, spirituality, honor, integrity, ability, etc.

 

Unfortunately?? Fah!

I would agree that I'd like to see a modern English translation based on either the H/F or R/P Majority text (H/F = Hodges & Farstad, R/P = Robinson & Pierpont). I'd definitely purchase a copy if one became available although I don't agree that the Majority Text is the better method of textual criticism.

 

Way too cool. What do you think of this version?

 

Dr. Cassidy, I know that you have mentioned the translation of the present, passive participle before, but I cannot find any history of it.

Could you give a specific example?

Is this the problem that you had with one of Paul's letters as translated by the NKJV? If so, can you provide the verse and accurate translation?

Also, while we are on the subject of majority text vs. others. It is my understanding that the NKJV truly does use one of the versions of Textus Receptus that are available (for the NT of course).

Can you give me your thoughts on the accuracy of this particular version of the TR vs. the majority text (which I believe you consider the most accurate--if not, please correct me.)?

So, what do you consider as some of the best modern versions? The one listed above? What are your thoughts of the NKJV--have they done a decent job of translating a decent underlying text?

Are there others available that you prefer?

If you could just pick one MV to keep on a desert Island with nothing to compare it to, what would you pick?

I know this sounds like a lot, but I am trying to pick that great brain of yours.:thumbs:

 

Thank you

Just get in line with the rest of the bill-collectors. I don't have to tell you the ole turnip story.:laugh:

Maybe I could stick it on my Army travel Visa card. Do you think they would notice? At least I hope they give me a net a Leavenworth so I can continue to visit all of you.

Seriously, thank you so much for your answers. In one post you have cleared up a lot of questions that have been nagging at me.

I realize that these things seem so simple to you, but I'm a "babe" when it comes to knowing the Bible as I should.

I bought a Stronger Strongs at your suggestion and use it with two different texts; a majority text and the TR) you mentioned that I am lucky enough to have in a beautiful intralinear.

I was right about what I thought you had said about the tense issue. I tried to explain it to my pastor once and showed him my Stronger Strongs. His answer? "Oh, all of these new scholars think they are finding new things out about the Greek and Hebrew, so they come out with new fangled (his words) books like that Stronger Strongs, trying to correct what was already known."

I mentioned that I felt the Byzantine text was better and also showed him my intralinear TR, to which his response was: "You mean to tell me that there really is a TR and that wasn't made up by those guys trying to make us stick to King james Bibles?"

Now, let me cut him some slack. We are a small church with mostly older country people, most of which are lucky if they have a high-school education. Our pastor has to get his GED so he could take some college courses. He DID get his Associates from OBU, so some of his statements surprise me (what in the WORLD are they teaching in the seminarys today?). All in all, he IS a good Christian man who loves the Lord and loves to win souls. So I certainly have to forgive him for his statements, but I do wish some pastors would spend more time studying and less sending e-mails to each other for fun and games.

TCassidy, I would LOVE to sit under you in a class. Have you thought about publishing? You certainly have everything it takes to do so and I should know because most of my job is related to helping our explosives safety teachers develop their knowledge into text books. Although we are talking two completely seperate subject, it becomes second nature for me to tell if a person has what it takes to publish a textbook.

I'm certainly not telling anybody else anything new here, TCassidy stands on his own.

Anyway, I'm rambling, just thanks for answering questions and having the patience to answer the questions of those of us like me who are quite ignorant, but want to learn and can't afford seminary or 200 dollar text books. Thank you Dr. Cassidy, I salute you!

 

TCassidy's suggestion? He told me a same thing, but I disagree with him because I investigated this book and found out why he suggested you to get it. I thumb down that book. I have OLD Strong's and use it for my Bible study tools.

 

For 1 Co. 1:18, IMO the modern translations are better. In Greek, there are three verbal aspects: imperfective, perfective, and aoristic. The aspect of the two participles in question is imperfective, and such aspect is usually demonstrated in translation with non-static language (e.g., inceptive, continuative, repetitive, etc.). The "default" aspect is aoristic, and when the author switches to imperfective or perfective he is usually doing so for a reason.

 

Doc, Opinion on the WEB Bible?

 

Stronger Strong's?

What is the difference and where do I find it? I did a web search and turned up nothing.

Thanks.

 

Are you saying present participles do not have an imperfective aspect? What aspect or kind of action would you suggest for present particples if not imperfective?