Which Revision is Correct?

Now that really would rub a true,died-in-the-wool KJVO nuts. But KJVO's who would object to such a rational procedure are stuck because they basically have Blayney's version! What to do? Aw-tekay! (A little Hangul tossed in.)

 

I believe the question should be - which is the most accurate - as no man made translation can be perfect (and I know you know that, but for the benefit of others...).

It stands to reason that the latest would be the greatest.

Moving on from there to other translations:

In terms of accuracy, I would qualify the underlying text.

From the Scrivener Traditional Text, the NJKV (although there are issues).
From the Nestle-Alland, The NASV.

The overall easiest to read and comprehend (and just short of a functional equivalent) in my estimation is the popular NIV.

Personally, based upon it's popularity, I would like to see an NIV derived from the Traditional Text.

There wouldn't be many changes but the few would better suit my taste.

HankD

 

I disagree with this. If the KJV translators were more qualified, if the documents they had were superior, if they used superior technique, then their translation would be superior. And in my opinion, that is the case.

I am not a scholar on this subject whatsoever, although I did enough study years ago to be satisfied that the KJV is the accurate word of God in English. I do not believe the MVs are accurate.

Here are some videos I have been watching lately from Pastor D. A. Waite, I am sure you are familiar with him. These are videos of sermons he held at a church in S.C. on this issue, each sermon is about an hour long, but well worth watching. He also has good books on this subject you might be interested in.

http://www.deanburgonsociety.org/idx_videos_wayside_bc.htm

Unlike some KJVOs, Pastor Waite is not fanatical about his stand on the KJVO as some are. I find myself much in agreement with his views on this subject.

You can forward past the first 15-20 minutes or so of each video as these are introductions, hymns and the like, as these were from church services.

But he clearly argues that the KJV translators were superior, their technique, and even theology were superior to the MV translators.

That said, I was not influenced by Pastor Waite on this issue, never heard of Pastor Waite till recently. I came to my conclusions on my own many years ago, although I was influenced by many good books I read back then.

 

winman, I was refering to the revisions made to the KJV, those corrections made from the 1611 to 1769. The 1769 would be the best as it is the latest. Others revisions were made but not so profound as from 1611 to 1769 IMO.

HankD

 

If,if, and if. But at least you're giving away some ground now. In the past you weren't even acknowledging that it's the best -- but the KJV family is the only legit Word of God.

These qualifers of yours do not make a case for your position. As others, like Dr.Bob has said -- you act as if the KJV revisers were the holy men of old that God moved upon to write the original autographic texts.

By the way, I don't think in any of those categories does it warrant the KJV team were the cream of the crop compared with other translators through the centuries.

But of course, you don't own any MV's to really make that claim stick.

 

Hi winman,

At the time of Christ, Helenism including the Koine Greek language had spread over the Gentile world because of the influence of Alexander.

In the original giving of the NT through the inspiration of the Spirit, the gospel was given in the "common" language of the day the "lingua franca" Koine Greek, That is what koine means - common.

It was the language of life and living that life in that day, not the language of the scholar, not classical, but the language of the day given to the common man.

Seventeenth century English of the Jacobean-Elizabethan periods is not that.

BTW, this IS NOT an attack on any edition of the KJV but statements of fact.

Therefore, one could easily make a case for the inaccuracy of the KJV (although I am not) now in the 21st century.
In additon, "accuracy" to me means more than just a slavish and raw word-for-word translation.

It must include the original intent of the Spirit as well, that is to convey the message of the gospel of salvation through grace by faith in the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ in the common language of the common man.

Idiomatic expressions, grammatical impossibilities going from Koine to English (e.g. double negatives), obscure slang expressions (see Matthew 27:44) and many other translational difficulties must be dealt with.

e.g.

KJV Matthew 27:44 The thieves also, which were crucified with him, cast the same in his teeth.​

The embolden words do not exist in the original koine language but presumably are a 17th century slang expression denoting verbal insult.​

The NKJV translates this passage more accurately in the standard English language of today:​

NKJV Matthew 27:44 Even the robbers who were crucified with Him reviled Him with the same thing.​

Or

NIV Matthew 27:44 In the same way the robbers who were crucified with him also heaped insults on him.​

To me fluency is an essential part of accuracy not only a mechanical adherence to the original words, although that is part of the arts and science of translation, the original intent of the words must be preserved but not obscured by slavish adherence to idiom or slang either in the source or receptor language.

The KJV is a witness to the providence of God, obviously used of God to proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ to the English speaking world after the invention of the printing press.

It has no doubt changed the course of the history of Christianity with the modern missionary movement, the Great Awakening, etc.

My personal belief is that the NKJV (based upon the Traditional Text) is its modern counterpart. Give it 150+ years for the editing process like the KJV (should the Lord tarry).

In the meantime I use MVs such as the NKJV/NIV to capture the fluency/accuracy of the 21st century English language.

 

Now you see, I do not see the NKJV and the NIV as saying the same things here. The NKJV agrees with the KJV in that it shows that the thieves hurled the very same specific insults that had been spoken in the preceding verses.

Matt 27:39 And they that passed by reviled him, wagging their heads,
40 And saying, Thou that destroyest the temple, and buildest it in three days, save thyself. If thou be the Son of God, come down from the cross.
41 Likewise also the chief priests mocking him, with the scribes and elders, said,
42 He saved others; himself he cannot save. If he be the King of Israel, let him now come down from the cross, and we will believe him.
43 He trusted in God; let him deliver him now, if he will have him: for he said, I am the Son of God.

And this is shown in Luke

Luke 23:39 And one of the malefactors which were hanged railed on him, saying, If thou be Christ, save thyself and us.

So, these mockers weren't just hurling any old insult. They were challanging that Jesus was the Son of God, the Christ. And this is what one of the malefactors said too.

But the NIV just says "also heaped insults on him". Now granted, the NIV verse says, "In the same way", but to me this just indicates they also insulted him and does not point out that they made the same specific insult. I hope you are following me here.

So, to me anyway, the KJV/NKJV and the NIV are saying very different things here.

Maybe that is being picky, but the NIV gives a very different understanding to me.

 

No offense, but yes, you are being picky. Of all the verse comparisons between translations to question the veracity of the Bible, this is not a good one to pick. Looks like you're eisegeting here.

 

Very good illustration [attack on the Bible deleted] by the modern day commentators. And they are Common Taters! :laugh:

 

Yes, it's a very subtle difference, but it leads the mind in another direction.

It is like this riddle:

There is a man who wants to go home, but he can't, because there is a man with a mask waiting for him there.

Who is this man?

 

Batman? :laugh:

 

I give up - winman and cutter you have missed the point completely.

HankD

 

No, the answer is;

A BASEBALL PLAYER

Now, for those of you who did not get this answer, it should be pretty obvious why. The word "home" misled you. You probably thought of your home where you reside. And because this word misled you, you may have thought of the man with the mask as a burglar.

But once you realize home refers to home plate, then of course you understand the man with the mask is the catcher on the opposing team waiting for you prepared to tag you out.

And this is what the NIV version of Matthew 27:44 does. It misleads you, or misdirects you to not properly understand what the verse is saying. In the KJV and the NKJV, the way the verse is presented makes you understand that the thieves on the cross where hurling the same exact insult or accusation at Christ as those in the crowd who were questioning whether Jesus was the Son of God, the promised Christ the Jews had looked for for thousands of years.

No, the NIV simply gives the impression that these thieves were insulting Christ as those in the crowd, but does not direct your mind to understand they were also questioning the deity of Jesus.

You may argue, "So what?, in Luke 23 in the NIV it shows that one thief questioned Jesus's deity.", and it does. But I look at this as an erosion of doctrine. It is subtle to be sure. You know, it is not a good idea to base doctrine on a single verse in the scriptures, it is always more sure to find supporting scipture, the more scripture you can find to support a doctrine, the more sure it is.

But the real point I have been trying to make is that the KJV and MVs are not saying the same thing. Oh, in probably 90% or more of the scriptures they are in complete agreement, but there is a fairly large percentage of verses that give a very different meaning and understanding, and often misdirect the reader to come to a different understanding, just as the word "home" in the riddle I showed misdirects a person's mind to misunderstand who this person is.

 

Arg! winman, you missed the point and I'm not going to let it go.

In the Greek text of ANY family, Byzantine, Alexandrian, Western, including any of the several editions of the Textus Receptus the emboldened words in the following passage "cast the same in his teeth" do NOT exist.

The KJV translators took what they considered a justified liberty by adding words to their translation that did not exist in the original language.

Those words were a colloquialism or what we would call a "slang expression".
Why did they take this liberty? Presumably to bring the Scripture into the receptor language in a way that would be understandable to the 17th century English speaker. The expression indicated the scorn the onlookers had for Him. Whereas the NIV uses the expression "heaped insults upon him"

In fact I believe it is a quite justifiable functional equivalent of the original Koine for the 17th century English speaker.

So is the similar methodology of all the Modern Translations of the 20th and 21st centuries.

You may not agree with the product but they have done no different than the KJV Anglo-Catholic Church of England scholars.

In addition and IMO, your objection doesn't hold water that the NIV weakens the diety of Christ in this passage when you look at it in it's entirety.

NIV Matthew 27

39 Those who passed by hurled insults at him, shaking their heads
40 and saying, "You who are going to destroy the temple and build it in three days, save yourself! Come down from the cross, if you are the Son of God!"
41 In the same way the chief priests, the teachers of the law and the elders mocked him.
42 "He saved others," they said, "but he can't save himself! He's the King of Israel! Let him come down now from the cross, and we will believe in him.
43 He trusts in God. Let God rescue him now if he wants him, for he said, 'I am the Son of God.'"
44In the same way the robbers who were crucified with him also heaped insults on him.​

If I were unkind I would say "at least the NIV translation didn't add words to the Scripture 'in His teeth' like the KJV which is forbidden : (Proverbs 30:6 Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar)" but I won't because I understand what is happening with the use of this 17th century English slang expression in that they presumably were trying to carry the nuance of scorn from the Koine to the reader, whereas the NIV uses the expression "heaped insults upon him" to achieve the same.

HankD

 

As a former catcher, I should've known :thumbs:

Grace to you and peace, friend.

 

Hank, don't confuse us with truth...you're ruining a perfectly good thread :tongue3:

 

Neither is correct;both are flawed.Actually *either* is wrong -- no type of KJV is perfect. There is no　such thing as a perfect translation.

The KJV is more of a commentary -- with all of its explanatory additions supplementing the text. The NIV or ESV for instance adds far less to the Word of God. So I guess they,among many other versions, are more accurate -- but still not perfect.

 

Funny thing, that's what I call all Bibles other than the KJV.
Be careful though, I usually get demerits when I say it about other versions. Maybe since your knocking the good ol' KJV though nobody on here will care.

 

The KJV Bibles are still the Word of God -- no question about that. But how much addition to the original are you comfortable with? What is your tolerance level?