King James Version Only...?

[RLT63]

No thanks. The premise that earlier manuscripts, undergoing fewer revisions-rewrites-copying is somehow less accurate is not logical.

My BS meter is finely tuned these days and I am leery of anyone who requires such volume, 46-paragraphs, such quantity to obviously compensate for quality. This is why I asked for the Cliff Notes version. It caused you to condense the volume to the basic premises, which are fatally flawed. They are fatally flawed for two reasons: the FROM and the TO of the KJV translation.

I don't need to become an expert in linguistics. I don't need to substitute KJV for Byzantine and non-KJV with Alexandrian text references to make myself appear more erudite. The TO of the KJV translation is archaic, obsolete. Claiming it is the best translation is false on its face given the fact that no one speaks Middle English anymore.

So, you retreat to the FROM part of the translation. I thank God that the majority of people, the majority of Christians, the majority of academics recognize the newer translations are from more reliable manuscripts.

I never said the KJV was the best translation. You didn’t read my post and you are making assumptions. I call BS on you. If you want to go with the majority of academics then do that. But some people have different opinions. You have confirmation bias on this issue you are only reading material that agrees with your opinion. There’s just as much possibility that the Alexandrian texts were corrupted as there is that the Byzantine have been corrupted. Origen wrote that the Alexandrian texts had been corrupted in his time. But you’re not interested in hearing another viewpoint other than your own.

 

[Wrangler]

I never said the KJV was the best translation.

Appeal to Strawman. You are denying the KJV is the worst translation.

 

[Wrangler]

There’s just as much possibility that the Alexandrian texts were corrupted as there is that the Byzantine have been corrupted.

False. Not everything is equal.

 

[RLT63]

Appeal to Strawman. You are denying the KJV is the worst translation.

It’s certainly not the worst translation. You have bought in to modern scholarship. No need to discuss this with you your head is in the sand. Do you think the NLT or The Message are better translations? You can’t be serious

 

[RLT63]

False. Not everything is equal.

You should have read my post

 

[Wrangler]

You have bought in to modern scholarship.

And what have you bought into? That more accurate information is worse?!

 

[Jim B]

It’s certainly not the worst translation. You have bought in to modern scholarship. No need to discuss this with you your head is in the sand

How does anyone choose which translations are the best and the worst, or even rank them? Every translation has been created for a purpose, with different guiding philosophies and techniques. I read several different translations, as none of them are "perfect"; they each have a goal and how they achieve their stated purpose is what counts in my book (pun).

 

[RLT63]

And what have you bought into? That more accurate information is worse?!

Older is not necessarily more accurate. I’m not a King James Only advocate. I think much of the criticism of the Majority text is unwarranted and it has value. The modern translations are good Bibles but the KJV has value and I especially like the NKJV. Did you read my post about John 5:4? I noticed you didn’t respond to that.

 

[Jim B]

Older is not necessarily more accurate. I’m not a King James Only advocate. I think much of the criticism of the Majority text is unwarranted and it has value. The modern translations are good Bibles but the KJV has value and I especially like the NKJV. Did you read my post about John 5:4? I noticed you didn’t respond to that.

What is the big deal about John 5:4? It doesn't matter if it's included or it isn't, since the subject is the reaction by some Jews of Jesus' healing of the man on the sabbath. => Context is important <=

 

[Wrangler]

Older is not necessarily more accurate.

‘Not necessarily more’ is epistemological ambiguous. Totally applies to the KJV as one of the oldest.

Beyond that, since when was ‘necessarily more accurate’ the standard in considering documents closer to the source more reliable?

 

[Wrangler]

Did you read my post about John 5:4? I noticed you didn’t respond to that.

Sorry about that. I tried to respond quickly to one point in your post. I didn't think one verse mattered to the overal discussion.

Let me give you an example, John 5:4. Modern versions omit verse 4- But the story makes no sense without verse 4: Read verse 7:

Jhn 5:2 - Now there is at Jerusalem by the sheep market a pool, which is called in the Hebrew tongue Bethesda, having five porches.
Tools

Jhn 5:3 - In these lay a great multitude of impotent folk, of blind, halt, withered,waiting for the moving of the water.

Jhn 5:4 - For an angel went down at a certain season into the pool, and troubledthe water: whosoever then first after the troubling of the water stepped in was madewhole of whatsoever disease he had.

I didn't take the time to look at a variety of modern verses. I only looked into one of my favorites. v4 is there in the VOICE translation. I believe it came out in 2012.

In your post you wrote, 'Let me give you an example' but did not specify what you were giving me an example of. Please clarify. Thanks!

John 5:2-7​

The Voice​

Jesus takes His disciples into one of the most miserable places they have ever seen. The suffering and impurity is frightening, but He comes to serve these precious people.​

2-3 In Jerusalem they came upon a pool by the sheep gate surrounded by five covered porches. In Hebrew this place is called Bethesda.
Crowds of people lined the area, lying around the porches. All of these people were disabled in some way; some were blind, lame, paralyzed, or plagued by diseases[; and they were waiting for the waters to move. 4 From time to time, a heavenly messenger would come to stir the water in the pool. Whoever reached the water first and got in after it was agitated would be healed of his or her disease].[a] 5-6 In the crowd, Jesus noticed one particular man who had been living with his disability for 38 years. He knew this man had been waiting here a long time.
Jesus (to the disabled man): Are you here in this place hoping to be healed?
Disabled Man: 7 Kind Sir, I wait, like all of these people, for the waters to stir; but I cannot walk. If I am to be healed in the waters, someone must carry me into the pool. Without a helping hand, someone else beats me to the water’s edge each time it is stirred.

 

[RLT63]

What is the big deal about John 5:4? It doesn't matter if it's included or it isn't, since the subject is the reaction by some Jews of Jesus' healing of the man on the sabbath. => Context is important <=

Without verse 4 verse 7 makes no sense. Modern versions omit part of verse 3 and all of verse 4. Without verse 4 it’s just a bunch of disabled people who want to take a dip in the pool

 

[RLT63]

Sorry about that. I tried to respond quickly to one point in your post. I didn't think one verse mattered to the overal discussion.


I didn't take the time to look at a variety of modern verses. I only looked into one of my favorites. v4 is there in the VOICE translation. I believe it came out in 2012.

In your post you wrote, 'Let me give you an example' but did not specify what you were giving me an example of. Please clarify. Thanks!

John 5:2-7​

The Voice​

Jesus takes His disciples into one of the most miserable places they have ever seen. The suffering and impurity is frightening, but He comes to serve these precious people.​

2-3 In Jerusalem they came upon a pool by the sheep gate surrounded by five covered porches. In Hebrew this place is called Bethesda.
Crowds of people lined the area, lying around the porches. All of these people were disabled in some way; some were blind, lame, paralyzed, or plagued by diseases[; and they were waiting for the waters to move. 4 From time to time, a heavenly messenger would come to stir the water in the pool. Whoever reached the water first and got in after it was agitated would be healed of his or her disease].[a] 5-6 In the crowd, Jesus noticed one particular man who had been living with his disability for 38 years. He knew this man had been waiting here a long time.
Jesus (to the disabled man): Are you here in this place hoping to be healed?
Disabled Man: 7 Kind Sir, I wait, like all of these people, for the waters to stir; but I cannot walk. If I am to be healed in the waters, someone must carry me into the pool. Without a helping hand, someone else beats me to the water’s edge each time it is stirred.

That version includes it. Thanks

 

[RLT63]

‘Not necessarily more’ is epistemological ambiguous. Totally applies to the KJV as one of the oldest.

Beyond that, since when was ‘necessarily more accurate’ the standard in considering documents closer to the source more reliable?

I understand their argument that the older texts are closer to the original but there is evidence the Alexandrian texts were corrupted. All in all we’re not talking about that much difference and the essential doctrines are present in every version. I can take the New World Translation and still show you the plan of salvation

 

[Wrangler]

I understand their argument that the older texts are closer to the original but there is evidence the Alexandrian texts were corrupted. All in all we’re not talking about that much difference and the essential doctrines are present in every version. I can take the New World Translation and still show you the plan of salvation

I was going to make a similar point.

Getting back to the better source material (not the non-existent perfect source material) the Alexandrian texts have less corruption, less opportunity for corruption and begs the question, on what basis or standard are you claiming they are corrupt at all? The KJV standard?

Putting aside the Bible, the methods and standards to evaluate the validity of any ancient text is probably the same; closer to the source is considered more reliable, less copies is more reliable. There is no argument against modern translations:

1. FROM: have better manuscripts than the KJV editors.
2. FROM: have better understanding of the ancient language than the KJV editors.
3. TO: are translating into modern 21st century way of speaking, not to an arhaic language.

Again I go back to I do not speak Middle English. One might claim that the best translation of the Bible is in Swaili. That may true but I don't speak Swaili.

And going back to your statement in post #564 and my reply with question. And what have you bought into? That more accurate information is worse?!

 

[Jim B]

Without verse 4 verse 7 makes no sense. Modern versions omit part of verse 3 and all of verse 4. Without verse 4 it’s just a bunch of disabled people who want to take a dip in the pool

Simply your opinion, nothing more. As I said earlier, it's about Jesus healing the man and the Jews objecting because it was done on the Sabbath. So you are missing the point of the story.

"Modern versions" gives you away, since there are many versions and they all differ. You're lumping a lot of versions under one biased umbrella.

 

[Aunty Jane]

Without verse 4 verse 7 makes no sense. Modern versions omit part of verse 3 and all of verse 4. Without verse 4 it’s just a bunch of disabled people who want to take a dip in the pool

Some inhabitants of Jerusalem in Jesus’ day thought that the pool of Bethzatha had healing powers when its water was “stirred up.” As a result, people seeking a cure congregated at the site. But was it confirmed that an angel was responsible for stirring up the water....or was this just a myth believed by desperately sick people?

This is what my research revealed....

The pool in question has been identified as a Jewish ritual bath. Its water level was fed and maintained by drawing on the contents of an adjacent reservoir, which was part of the same complex. Investigation of the site has revealed that the two pools were divided by a dam. A sluice gate within the structure of this dam could be opened in order to allow water to flow from the reservoir through a channel into the bottom of the ritual bath. On such occasions, the rush of water would certainly have disturbed the pool’s surface.

It is noteworthy that John 5:4, which said that an angel disturbed the water, is not found in highly regarded ancient Greek manuscripts, such as the fourth-century Codex Sinaiticus. At Bethzatha, however, Jesus cured a man who had been sick for 38 years. Without even entering the pool, the man was instantly healed.”

So with the archeological evidence for the reason behind the stirring up of the waters, could superstation be at the root of their assumption that an angel was responsible? Did Jesus give angels holy spirit to heal people? The Bible says that he gave God’s spirit to humans to do such healing.
Angels were messengers...not healers.

 

[RLT63]

I was going to make a similar point.

Getting back to the better source material (not the non-existent perfect source material) the Alexandrian texts have less corruption, less opportunity for corruption and begs the question, on what basis or standard are you claiming they are corrupt at all? The KJV standard?

Putting aside the Bible, the methods and standards to evaluate the validity of any ancient text is probably the same; closer to the source is considered more reliable, less copies is more reliable. There is no argument against modern translations:

1. FROM: have better manuscripts than the KJV editors.
2. FROM: have better understanding of the ancient language than the KJV editors.
3. TO: are translating into modern 21st century way of speaking, not to an arhaic language.

Again I go back to I do not speak Middle English. One might claim that the best translation of the Bible is in Swaili. That may true but I don't speak Swaili.

And going back to your statement in post #564 and my reply with question. And what have you bought into? That more accurate information is worse?!

What if people didn’t copy a text because they saw there was a problem with it? I don’t think less copied means more reliable. There are other reasons like less handling and better climate conditions that would make texts survive longer. The more handled and copied the document the worse shape it’s going to be in. But again the more significant issue is how much agreement there is in all the documents. I would not choose this issue as a hill to die on

 

[Davy]

Out of all the theological ideas and topics that I've come across over the years, the issue of KJV only is one that I have not encountered until recently. I do appreciate the KJV and have a few Bibles in that translation, but to say that it is the only true word of God in English seems to be a far stretch. Also, this opens up a can of worms.

a) Do missionaries that travel to foreign countries where English is not the language require the people to learn old school English in order to have God's true Word?

b) Is English the only language that the Bible must be in?

c) What about all the Bible translations before the 1611 KJV?

Those are just a few questions I have regarding this topic. I'd like to ask the members here, what are you thoughts on the subject?

That the English Bibles translated from the Traditional Greek texts are The Word of God, is unmistakable. Those like yourself, who try... and use ideas like "KJV only" as a platform of argument, only deceive theirselves, and reveal they don't know about the different manuscript sources and history for English Bible translations.

 

[RLT63]

Simply your opinion, nothing more. As I said earlier, it's about Jesus healing the man and the Jews objecting because it was done on the Sabbath. So you are missing the point of the story.

"Modern versions" gives you away, since there are many versions and they all differ. You're lumping a lot of versions under one biased umbrella.

How about all the versions that exclude verse 4? Not all modern versions do. It makes a difference to me if these people were just sitting around a pool or if miracles were happening because of Angelic activity. If there was no verse 4 and no angel why did the man want to get in the pool? Verse 7 makes no sense without verse 4 so it’s my opinion verse 4 shouldn’t be omitted