-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Will the Real KJV Please Stand Up!
- Thread starter Craigbythesea
- Start date
Pastor KevinR
New Member
Did Moses have a KJV?
Bro Kevin aka "Rev Kev"
Craigbythesea
Well-Known Member
Hank wrote,
Well, I'm not a KJVO but KJVp because the TR IMO is the better text.
I think the underlying question is whether the Greek word husteron is an abverb or adjective of comparison. There is a difference of opinion in translation here and it could go either way.
Personally, I believe the NIV says it best:
NIV Matthew 4:2 After fasting forty days and forty nights, he was hungry.
Well, Hank, I see that you shifted the focus from the English tense of the verb to the Greek adverbial adjective which has no tense.
What you said about the Greek word husteron (afterward) is true
, but what does that tell us about the English tense of the verb (an hungred) in this phrase in the KJV? It is a translation of the active aorist indicative Greek verb επείνασε.
As for NIV translation of this verse, I don’t believe that it is precise enough:
NIV Matthew 4:2 After fasting forty days and forty nights, he was hungry.
Compare the NASB 1995 Update translation:
NASBU Matthew 4:2 And after He had fasted forty days and forty nights, He then became hungry.
KJV Matthew 4:2 And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward an hungred.
Majority Text Matthew 4:2 καὶ νηστεύσας ημέρας τεσσεράκοντα καὶ νύκτας τεσσεράκοντα στερον επείνασε.
I don’t believe that there is any reasonable doubt that the NASBU translation of Matthew 4:2 is just as accurate as the KJV and that it is much easier to read.
The NIV translation flows a little better but is not as accurate. Personally, I am much more concerned with accuracy than I am with flow.
[ February 09, 2004, 03:12 AM: Message edited by: Craigbythesea ]
Well, I'm not a KJVO but KJVp because the TR IMO is the better text.
I think the underlying question is whether the Greek word husteron is an abverb or adjective of comparison. There is a difference of opinion in translation here and it could go either way.
Personally, I believe the NIV says it best:
NIV Matthew 4:2 After fasting forty days and forty nights, he was hungry.
Well, Hank, I see that you shifted the focus from the English tense of the verb to the Greek adverbial adjective which has no tense.
What you said about the Greek word husteron (afterward) is true
It is a translation of the active aorist indicative Greek verb επείνασε.As for NIV translation of this verse, I don’t believe that it is precise enough:
NIV Matthew 4:2 After fasting forty days and forty nights, he was hungry.
Compare the NASB 1995 Update translation:
NASBU Matthew 4:2 And after He had fasted forty days and forty nights, He then became hungry.
KJV Matthew 4:2 And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward an hungred.
Majority Text Matthew 4:2 καὶ νηστεύσας ημέρας τεσσεράκοντα καὶ νύκτας τεσσεράκοντα στερον επείνασε.
I don’t believe that there is any reasonable doubt that the NASBU translation of Matthew 4:2 is just as accurate as the KJV and that it is much easier to read.
[ February 09, 2004, 03:12 AM: Message edited by: Craigbythesea ]
Craigbythesea
Well-Known Member
You know Craig, I have two minds about this also.
My feeling is that accuracy and flow (understandability) are like the two wings of an airplane.
Which is more important?
HankD </font>[/QUOTE]"Flow" and "understandability" are not two peas in a pod. In fact, they are more different than apples and oranges. “Flow” has to do with the physical sound and relationship of the words; “understanding” has to do with the comprehension of the words. Perhaps we should start a thread on Translation Theory.
Uh, Scott, wait just a minute there. How did Timothy have the Scriptures when the Apostle Paul was still writing them?</font>[/QUOTE] He had a "version" of the OT apparently... but it wasn't the KJV OT. But you bring up a good point. The Bible wasn't even complete and Paul calls what Timothy had "scripture". Yet, you complain because MV's are supposedly missing a hand full of verses.
Luke quoted Jesus reading from Isaiah in Luke 4. Are you saying that Luke was in error as to what Jesus read?
Regardless, the fact remains that Luke 4 says that Jesus read a passage from Isaiah 61 that does not match word for word the KJV reading at the same place. One place or the other is in error (in the KJV) or else Jesus used a different but equally valid version of Isaiah than that used by the KJV translators.
Well, no. Just because you think you have successfully evaded these issues doesn't mean that you have answered them.
You really should. Then yall can theorize your lives away.
We'll just keep our Translation Facts and keep shouting the victory, not "screaming" all the way home.
Hankd, please do study flow when you read your Bible, the Lord likes it when you come to understanding of flowing the right way, instead of floating downstream.
We'll just keep our Translation Facts and keep shouting the victory, not "screaming" all the way home.
Hankd, please do study flow when you read your Bible, the Lord likes it when you come to understanding of flowing the right way, instead of floating downstream.
OK. I'm game. Prove it. Show relevant, direct proof that it is the only Bible God preserved in English. But do this in light of the fact that God preserved His Word in English prior to 1611.
That is your prerogative... but it does not warrant attacks on other versions of God's Word nor does it justify your insenuation that God only approves of the KJV.
How about those that preceded the KJV like the Geneva? How about all Bibles, including the originals, that preceded the KJV. None of them were exactly like it.
Most of those who oppose you are not liberals. In fact, they are more fundamentalist than you are since they derive their doctrines from the Bible.
KJVOnlyism does not come from the Bible. There are no scriptures that say or even suggest what you believe. Yours is a classic rejection of using scripture as the final authority. If something does not come from the Bible (KJV or otherwise) you shouldn't hold it as doctrine nor encourage others to do so.
Bump to Tim L.
Craigbythesea
Well-Known Member
So say you.
Poverbs 1:5
A wise [man will hear, and will increase learning; and a man of understanding shall attain unto wise counsels:
Understanding comes through the recognizable "sounds" of words and the order in which they are sequenced.
HankD </font>[/QUOTE]Extremely complex poetry may flow much better than the NIV and yet be very difficult for any but very well educated people to understand.
I am very familiar with Eugene Nida and the so-called "Dynamic" Equivalence principle; the “flow” of the words has nothing to do with any of it, nor with how understandable phrases and sentences may be.
A side note: The NIV “butchers” in a very crude manner the thoughts and expressions of the New Testament writers, especially their uses of the very complex Greek verb system. Whether it is a satisfactory translation for 7th graders and others with underdeveloped reading skills is a hotly debated topic.
Topic note: Let’s not further derail THIS thread. The late 16th and early 17th century English grammar in Matthew 4:2 and the problems it poses for publishers, printers and 21st century readers is the topic of this thread. So far, no one has correctly interpreted the last phrase in that verse do to the foresaid problems. There are many unsatisfactory renderings in the KJV and these unsatisfactory renderings are proof that the KJO theory is false. The KJV is an excellent translation, but it is not perfect.