05 Jul 07
Originally posted by josephwNemesio clearly stated that there are older manuscripts available today that were not available to the translators of the KJV. Do you believe that they are less accurate?
The original autographs are dust by now. I base what I believe on the extant manuscripts used by the translators of the KJV, to be the best there is.
Is that wrong? If so, then please tell me what manuscripts you believe are the most reliable.
Now answer my question. If claim that the extant manuscript used by the translators of the KJV contains the word that is closest to the RSV and not the one in KJV then will you say:
1. I am wrong and dont know my Greek.
2. The KJV is right and the extant manuscript is wrong.
05 Jul 07
Originally posted by pawnhandlerAnother good example is 1 Corinthians 13. The KJV uses the word charity instead of love so as not to confuse those in English because the Greek has five names for 5 different kinds of love. Conversly, the English have but one word to convey the notion of love despite there being five different kinds of love. Therefore, they thought it best to use the word charity because in the English we tend not to associate the agape kind of love that was mentioned in the Greek with the word love we use today in the English.
As was pointed out, words change meaning. Look at the quote about "suffer the children to come to me" which some people interpreted as the thought that children should endure suffering ... since the word changed meaning over time. A proper translation would be "allow the children..." Years from now a scripture scholar may discover that the word really ...[text shortened]... ersion; the King James version is basically a foreign language for American children.
05 Jul 07
1 edit
Originally posted by josephwMy favorite verse in the whole Bible has a much clearer issue than
The proof is in the pudding.
"First, translation is not about words, it's about preserving the meaning" Your words.
When the words are changed, so is the meaning.
I'll site one example: Galatians 2:20 KJV "I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by th And just how significant that change in meaning effects how we live the christian life.
that one Gen 15:1, so with scripture I look at several translations not
just one, and there are language issues looking at English that is that
old let alone did they get it right too. Please do not take what I'm
saying that KJV isn't scripture, I just do not trust just one, so use as
many as I can, because I lack knowledge when it comes to being able
to read in the original languages.
Kelly
05 Jul 07
Originally posted by KellyJayI cut my teeth on the NIV. But I have read and used a dozen different versions over the years, and for me the KJV is, in my opinion, how shall I say this, 100% accurate.
My favorite verse in the whole Bible has a much clearer issue than
that one Gen 15:1, so with scripture I look at several translations not
just one, and there are language issues looking at English that is that
old let alone did they get it right too. Please do not take what I'm
saying that KJV isn't scripture, I just do not trust just one, so use as
m ...[text shortened]... ecause I lack knowledge when it comes to being able
to read in the original languages.
Kelly
I also use a number of commentaries and concordances in my study of the bible.
I don't know why I have to keep getting myself in so much trouble around here. I guess I'm over opinionated. As well as condescending, patronising, and just plain vitriolic.
05 Jul 07
Originally posted by whodeyYou've mentioned that there are 5 Greek words for love in the bible before. I know of only 3. Agape, philos, and Eros. I'm not sure I spelled one of them correctly. What are the other 2?
Another good example is 1 Corinthians 13. The KJV uses the word charity instead of love so as not to confuse those in English because the Greek has five names for 5 different kinds of love. Conversly, the English have but one word to convey the notion of love despite there being five different kinds of love. Therefore, they thought it best to use the word ...[text shortened]... ape kind of love that was mentioned in the Greek with the word love we use today in the English.
05 Jul 07
Originally posted by twhiteheadI know of only two bodies of extant manuscripts besides the dead sea scrolls. The first is what is called the textus recepticus or majority texts, used by the translators of the KJV, and the sinaiticus, or minority texts, which was rejected by the translators as corrupt.
Nemesio clearly stated that there are older manuscripts available today that were not available to the translators of the KJV. Do you believe that they are less accurate?
Now answer my question. If claim that the extant manuscript used by the translators of the KJV contains the word that is closest to the RSV and not the one in KJV then will you say:
1. I am wrong and dont know my Greek.
2. The KJV is right and the extant manuscript is wrong.
I'm not sure of my spelling here.
I would like to know if there are any others I've never heard of.
06 Jul 07
1 edit
Originally posted by josephwAgape: In ancient Greek it generally means a "pure", ideal type of love rather than the physical attraction suggested by the word love. It is the God kind of love.
You've mentioned that there are 5 Greek words for love in the bible before. I know of only 3. Agape, philos, and Eros. I'm not sure I spelled one of them correctly. What are the other 2?
Eros: is passionate love, with sensual desire etc.
Philia: means friendship or a dispassionate virtuous love.
Storge: Means affection in modern Greek. It is natural affection such as parents for their child.
Xenia: Means hospitality. It was extremely important in the ancient world.
06 Jul 07
Originally posted by josephwI'm going to assume that you know very little about the art and science of translation.
The original autographs are dust by now. I base what I believe on the extant manuscripts used by the translators of the KJV, to be the best there is.
Is that wrong? If so, then please tell me what manuscripts you believe are the most reliable.
I apologize if this post reëxpresses things you already know.
Generally in the translation of those texts where we do not have the originals, the older the source,
the more likely it is going to be pure (as in free from editorial changes and scribal errors). So,
given two sources, one from the 2nd century, another from the 8th, the former is presumed better
if no other mitigating factors are considered.
Second, amongst contemporary sources, majority rules. If ten sources from the 4th century read,
'Jesus ate a pickle' and one sources reads, 'Jesus ate an apple,' the 'pickle' translation is preferred.
Third, amongst contemporary sources, those which communicate a simpler idea are preferred over
those which communicate a more complicated one. So, if three 3rd-century sources read, 'Jesus
danced,' and three 3rd-century sources read, 'Jesus danced, with sweat pouring down until he wore
holes in his shoes,' the former is preferred.
These are some basic translation guidelines. There are dozens of others. They aren't rules to be
followed slavishly, but merely standards from which deviation requires justification.
The Greek text for the Christian Scriptures upon which the KJV is based is called the Textus Receptus.
It was compiled by a brilliant man named Stephanus in the mid-16th century, who using the
formidable Erasmus' research, represented the best scholarship of the time. However the
scholarship was made on late Byzantine Greek texts (8th or 9th century). It was also not utterly free
from typographical error (it was a print edition that Tyndale used for his English translation, not a
series of manuscripts like Erasmus used for his transcription).
Two critical discoveries have been made since then. First is the Codex Sinaiticus which derives
from the mid-4th century. The other is the Codex Vaticanus which appears to be slightly older
(perhaps a few decades, but no earlier than 300).
Note that these are four centuries earlier than the best manuscript sources used by Erasmus
which were the basis of the Greek edition printed by Stephanus used for the KJV. Additionally,
there are points of agreement between these two independent texts (i.e., they were prepared
independently of each other) where they are in disagreement with the Textus Receptus.
Furthermore, we have discovered many independent fragments (some only as large as a postage
stamp, some of several folios in length) which are older yet than either of the Codices mentioned
above. Some derive as early as the 2nd century -- within 4 generations of Jesus' Crucifixion!! Of
the passages represented here, some reflect an earlier purer translation than many passages in the
Textus Receptus and even (occasionally) the two Codices.
This is why no one takes the KJV seriously anymore as a reliable translation reflecting modern scholarship.
It's main source was from eight centuries after Jesus, and four centuries after two excellent sources
that have since been discovered.
Nemesio
06 Jul 07
Originally posted by josephw
I know of only two bodies of extant manuscripts besides the dead sea scrolls.
Well, there are thousands more. The Dead Sea Scrolls have literally zero NT literature in them.
They aren't even remotely relevant to Christian Scripture, so I don't know why you would bring them
up.
I addressed the two important sources which supplant the Textus Receptus, although I should
add a clarification of the 'Majority' and 'Minority' situations. Because the two other Codices were
not known or considered unreliable, they were not copied. So while we have many 10th-century
copies of the Byzantine-derived text (e.g.,) and makes a quantitative majority, they are not
qualitatively relevant. A 4th-century text is preferable to a 9th-century one, even if there are fifty
9th century ones and only four 4th-century ones. It only means an error was repeated over and
over.
Nemesio
06 Jul 07
Originally posted by josephw100% accurate in what way?
I cut my teeth on the NIV. But I have read and used a dozen different versions over the years, and for me the KJV is, in my opinion, how shall I say this, 100% accurate.
I also use a number of commentaries and concordances in my study of the bible.
I don't know why I have to keep getting myself in so much trouble around here. I guess I'm over opinionated. As well as condescending, patronising, and just plain vitriolic.
Kelly
06 Jul 07
Originally posted by josephwI notice that you have ignored my question twice. When you say that KJV is 100% accurate do you mean:
I cut my teeth on the NIV. But I have read and used a dozen different versions over the years, and for me the KJV is, in my opinion, how shall I say this, 100% accurate.
1. It is exactly what God wants it to be even if it is not an accurate translation.
2. It is a 100% accurate translation of the text it was translated from and that text is a 100% accurate copy of the original text as written by the author.
Please keep in mind that there is no such thing as a 100% accurate translation. A word in one language can not always be expressed with the exact same meaning in another language. It just is not possible.
07 Jul 07
Originally posted by twhiteheadSorry, I didn't intentionally ignore your question.
I notice that you have ignored my question twice. When you say that KJV is 100% accurate do you mean:
1. It is exactly what God wants it to be even if it is not an accurate translation.
2. It is a 100% accurate translation of the text it was translated from and that text is a 100% accurate copy of the original text as written by the author.
Please keep ...[text shortened]... ot always be expressed with the exact same meaning in another language. It just is not possible.
Perhaps I'm being too stringent. I have it in mind that the bible, specifically the KJV, is the "word of God". By definition, in my mind, that means it is free of error. Maybe I'm being too inflexible here in regard to the possibility that there may be "errors" as a result of mans involvement in the work of translation.
Be that as it may, I still hold to the thought that the bible is the most reliable source for all things concerning God and living the christian life.
I think it must be the environment of this forum that motivates me to "defend" the faith, as it were, to the extent that I am perceived to be, and I hate to use the word, a bigot.
Bigotry is an ugly thing.