Why do you use the Bible translation you use?

There are known bad manuscripts the so called critical text Bibles use.

 

What are the specific standards and measures that are used to determine which manuscripts are to be considered "bad" and are those same exact standards/measures applied consistently and justly?

 

History and nuance are lost to its language as a society degrades, and Western society certainly is degrading. I like the nuances of the language of the KJV too.

 

Not when they follow the Original Text their not. The TR sometimes follows the wrong manuscrips.
Somtimes the Majority of all manuscripts may be mistaken.

I think the editors of critical text bibles made bad decisions when looking at variants. Unfortunately translators are told to use texts made by critical text people that make primative bad decisions and wrong choices.

Lets not blame the manuscripts. It's the editors that make the bad choices.

 

I use the ESV because it is in the heritage of the Tyndale Tradition, BUT uses the best available manuscripts that we have today while preserving the alternate readings found in the TR.

 

I use the ones that seem to be the most accurate translation of the original texts. Thus I use the NASB (both the 95 and the 20) as my primary study bible with various study notes.

The KJV and NKJV and WEB are reliable comparison bibles.

The NET has great footnotes.

 

What happened to the LEB? It was on your most favored translations list for a long time.

 

How accurate that a copy is made is one factor. When possible against copies of a similar age. The whole point that the New Testament documents are in the hundreds and some over a thousand, there are more copies to check against for accuracy.

 

And that is known how? The two opposing standards, the more common readings of the text, aka the Majority Text , and the notion that older is always better aka typical for the Critical Text.

 

Without any specific measures/standards, labeling a manuscript as "bad" may be only a subjective opinion.

There may be many if not all the same-type variations and differences [additions, omissions, changes] found in the few Greek NT manuscripts used by Erasmus as in the unidentified manuscripts that you call "bad."

 

How is it determend that older manuscripts tyically have more errors in them?
Dating the Oldest New Testament Manuscripts

 

The list is not exhaustive.

 

It is known by comparison to the known Greek NT manuscript evidence. It is known that Erasmus added some readings from the textually-corrupt Latin Vulgate to his edited Greek NT text. The Textus Receptus has some conjectures or readings found in no known Greek NT manuscripts. The varying Textus Receptus editions have some readings that are not common to the majority of Greek NT manuscript copies. It may have as many as 1800 minority readings.

 

But you were such a fanboy of the LEB that it is surprising that you didn't even mention it.

 

I do not think I was a "fanboy" of the NIV, NLT, or ESV because of their agenda driven translation choices. OTOH, I do not recall posting a thread of LEB flaws, so I probably did not find its choices egregious.

 

I said the LEB.

 

So did I...

 

It was in, I beleive, 1968 that I bought my first Greek New Testament text with an apparatus. It was a Nestle's text, not Aland. What I discovered typically, where the KJV had a different reading from other Bible versions, the KJV typically followined the Majority reading and the others typically followed the oldest reading. Of course there where exceptions on both sides of the issue.

 

The Nkjv would be the edition tom use if one really wanted to stay in the TR tradition, as does update and correct the Kjv.

 

The Originals