Eternally Grateful
Well-Known Member
Yeah I saw that. I figured someone would take care of it soon..lol
KJV vs. other translations
- Thread starter elmo
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Eternally Grateful
Well-Known Member
Davy
Well-Known Member
Making me LAUGH!
Reception
The edition of Westcott and Hort began a new epoch in the history of textual criticism.[7] Most critical editions published after Westcott and Hort share their preference of the Alexandrian text-type and therefore are similar to The New Testament in the Original Greek. An exception is the text edited by Hermann von Soden. Soden's edition stands much closer to the text of Tischendorf than to the text of Westcott and Hort. All editions of Nestle-Aland remain close in textual character to the text WH. Aland reports that, while NA25 text shows, for example, 2,047 differences from von Soden, 1,996 from Vogels, 1,268 from Tischendorf, 1,161 from Bover, and 770 from Merk, it contains only 558 differences from WH text.[10]According to Bruce M. Metzger, "the general validity of their critical principles and procedures is widely acknowledged by scholars today."[11] In 1981 Metzger said:
Behold
Well-Known Member
""""Eighteenth century German textual scholars, Johann Griesbach and Johann Bengel, spurred the modern textual critical theory of re-examining the Textus Receptus and introduced a number of “scientific” criteria for determining authentic New Testament readings. In the late nineteenth century, English Churchmen Brooke Westcott and Fenton Hort adopted many of these criteria. The most influential of these criteria are the following as described by them in The New Testament in the Original Greek, the Text Revised by B.F. Westcott and F.J.A. Hort (Cambridge : MacMillan & Co., 1882):- There is a stronger presumption that the earlier date of a manuscript implies “greater purity of text”
- A reading that is apparently an “improvement” of the text is less likely to be authentic
- A more difficult reading is to be preferred as scribes tended to “smooth away difficulties”
Editors of the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament
In the course of the twentieth century, textual critics, Kurt Aland, Bruce Metzger, Cardinal Carlo Martini and others built on the works of Brooke Westcott and Fenton Hort and produced what is called the Nestle-Aland or United Bible Society Greek (NA/UBS) text. Metzger wrote:
“The international committee that produced the United Bible Societies Greek New Testament, not only adopted the Westcott and Hort edition as its basic text, but followed their methodology in giving attention to both external and internal consideration” (James Brooks, Bible Interpreters of the 20th century,
Today, this NA/UBS text is the standard Greek New Testament text for study in evangelical seminaries and translation by Bible societies. All major evangelical Bible translations printed today, except the King James Version, New King James Version and some others, are based on the NA/UBS text.""""
====================================================================================
When i personally evaluate a "new bible".....i use 2 verses.
What I do is discover what the "new bible" did with these 2 verses.
If it didn't get these right, i then put that bible "on hold".
1.) 1 Timothy 3:16.... "GOD was manifested in the Flesh".........so, if the verse says..."HE was manifested then that book is hiding or trying to hid the Deity of Christ
2.) "God is A Spirit".. John 4:24. If the verse says..."God is Spirit", then this book is not making the distinction between God's HOLY Spirit and the "un-clean" Spirit , which is the Devil's Spirit.. and demonic spirits and the "spirit that is now in the world... the ANTI-CHRIST SPIRIT.....And this book is also not making the distinction between the spirit in an animal, and God's Holy Spirit.
So, in that case.... this "New" bible fails the spiritual TEST, ...and that is the end of the story. = Dumpster
Last edited:
Davy
Well-Known Member
Then you must be trying to read the FIRST EDITION 1611 KJV, in Old English text, because LATER King James versions do not use... that Old English text.
Brethren, what those who support the corrupt Critical text movement of higher critics like to do is push the LIE that the KJV Bible is hard to read because of Old English when the later editions AREN'T EVEN IN OLD ENGLISH!
I doubt that most here have ever even seen... a 1st Edition 1611 King James Bible! (can still order one from Thomas Nelson publishers though).
Old English looks like this...
Later KJV Bible editions look like this...
So really, those who try and push that Old English fib make themselves look like idiots.
I isn't a fib and it still uses outdated terms.
e.g.
I am the true vine, and my Father is the husbandman. Every branch in me that beareth not fruit he taketh away: and every branch that beareth fruit, he purgeth it, that it may bring forth more fruit. Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you. ... etc
I understand it now but why read that sort of language when you can read the same message in plain English. Adding 'eth' to the end of words doesn't make it more holy. Q.E.D.
Last edited:
Davy
Well-Known Member
Like English speaking folks today, even teenagers, don't know what "thee" and "thou" means?? Come on!
Behold
Well-Known Member
When the original KJV was "revised", .. none of the verses were changed.....they just updated the Spelling of some of the Old English words.
Does Jon Grisham use those words? No, because he writes in plain English. I understand the terms but why read old fashioned words when ordinary ones will do just as well. If you choose the KJV well fine but you should not be telling others it is the only translation worth reading - because it isn't
Davy
Well-Known Member
Brethren, there's that FALSE EXCUSE again for not using the KJV Bible?
"Whaah...whaah... I can't... sniff, sniff... read... sniff, sniff... Old English."
Later KJV Bible Editions are NOT in Old English.
Wrangler
Well-Known Member
No excuse is needed to not use the worst, least accurate Bible available in English today.
Jim B
Well-Known Member
Saying " All major evangelical Bible translations printed today, except the King James Version, New King James Version and some others, are based on the NA/UBS text." Of course, "some others" leaves the door wide open.
From the NIV introduction, "The New International Version (NIV) is a translation of the Bible in contemporary English. Published by Biblica, the complete NIV was released in 1978 with a minor revision in 1984 and a major revision in 2011. The NIV relies on recently published critical editions of the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts." Critical edition: The objective of the textual critic's work is to provide a better understanding of the creation and historical transmission of the text and its variants. This understanding may lead to the production of a critical edition containing a scholarly curated text."
From the NET introduction: The NET Bible is a completely new translation of the Bible with 60,932 translators’ notes! It was completed by more than 25 scholars – experts in the original biblical languages – who worked directly from the best currently available Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts. Turn the pages and see the breadth of the translators’ notes, documenting their decisions and choices as they worked. The translators’ notes make the original languages far more accessible, allowing you to look over the translator’s shoulder at the very process of translation. This level of documentation is a first for a Bible translation, making transparent the textual basis and the rationale for key renderings (including major interpretive options and alternative translations). This unparalleled level of detail helps connect people to the Bible in the original languages in a way never before possible without years of study of Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. It unlocks the riches of the Bible’s truth from entirely new perspectives."
From the NRSVue introduction: The NRSV Updated Edition is the result of rigorous biblical scholarship to give readers access to the most inclusive, informed, and reliable text available. As new manuscripts came to light following the 1989 introduction of the NRSV, an improvement was undertaken to ensure the accuracy, clarity, and modernity of the updated translation. ... The NRSV Updated Edition sets out to be the most literal translation of the Bible available to date with its clear use of unambiguous and unbiased language. The new version gives English Bible readers access to the most meticulously researched, rigorously reviewed, and faithfully accurate translation on the market.
Please stop pushing the KJVO, "Westcott and Hort" false information. You sound foolish!
1.) 1 Timothy 3:16.... "GOD was manifested in the Flesh".........so, if the verse says..."HE was manifested then that book is hiding or trying to hid the Deity of Christ" is total nonsense. No Bible tries to hide the deity of Christ! Basing your proof one a single word is silly beyond measure.
2) "God is A Spirit".. John 4:24. If the verse says..."God is Spirit", then this book is not making the distinction between God's HOLY Spirit and the "un-clean" Spirit , which is the Devil's Spirit.. and demonic spirits and the "spirit that is now in the world... the ANTI-CHRIST SPIRIT.....And this book is also not making the distinction between the spirit in an animal, and God's Holy Spirit. Again, basing your proof one a single word is silly beyond measure. You are taking this way beyond logic! I have news for you: God IS Spirit! Your distinction is nonsense!
You clearly worship a single, outdated translation, created on the orders of a secular king to "prove" his personal doctrine of Protestantism. It is based on earlier translations and the relatively few sources available at the time. Modern translations are far more accurate, true, and understandable than your KJV (which has undergone several major revisions).
Say hello to your unicorn!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You have clearly turned your preferred translation into an idol. Worship God, not a book!
Jim B
Well-Known Member
If anyone wants to discuss errors in translations, lets look at Romans 8:1...
"Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus." Most translations, e.g., NIV, NRSVue, NET, etc.
"There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit." KJV
Here is what the NET reference note says:
"Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus." Most translations, e.g., NIV, NRSVue, NET, etc.
"There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit." KJV
Here is what the NET reference note says:
- Romans 8:1 tc The earliest and best witnesses of the Alexandrian and Western texts, as well as a few others (א* B D* F G 6 1506 1739 1881 co), have no additional words for v. 1. Later scribes (A D1 Ψ 81 365 629 vg) added the words μὴ κατὰ σάρκα περιπατοῦσιν (mē kata sarka peripatousin, “who do not walk according to the flesh”), while even later ones (א2 D2 33vid M) added ἀλλὰ κατὰ πνεῦμα (alla kata pneuma, “but [who do walk] according to the Spirit”). Both the external evidence and the internal evidence are compelling for the shortest reading. The scribes were evidently motivated to add such qualifications (interpolated from v. 4) to insulate Paul’s gospel from charges that it was characterized too much by grace. The KJV follows the longest reading found in M.
amigo de christo
Well-Known Member
Why herein is a mystery . most folks here ramble on about how i cant even write in english . YET I , by grace can easily
understand that version . I also have some real old dictionaries that if a word pops up that i did not know
i simply look it up .
amigo de christo
Well-Known Member
No arugment on that . The churches have long been hijacked . but not all , just most of them .
Marvelloustime
Well-Known Member
Brother is spotted. Praise the glorious Lord.
amigo de christo
Well-Known Member
amigo de christo
Well-Known Member
Marvelloustime
Well-Known Member
We did. Your post appeared at the same time as mine.
Let the Lord be praised.
Similar threads
