The KJV of the Bible

[Guest Butero]

 

Age doesn't make them more reliable.  None are the originals.  They are all copies.  It is like this.  I decide to copy the KJV Bible.  I create 100 copies today, and place them in storage for safe keeping.  20 years from now, I create 100 copies more and don't place them in an area where they will be preserved.  In the original 100 copies, I made mistakes because I wrote them in a hurry, and left certain verses out, but in the newer 100 copies, everything is in tact.  The ones that are buried are older, but less accurate.  That argument of age holds no water because nobody has the original scrolls to read from.  They are all copies.  My argument is the TR is complete and the other manuscripts are not.  I couldn't care less what scholars are claiming, but I can come up with names that will say the KJV Bible is more accurate if you want me to.  I have books written just for that purpose, but do they really prove anything? 

 

 

I think we have to ask ourselves what is most likely. Anything is possible, even the senerio you posted. It's possible but unlikely that a scbribe would get in a hurry and leave out a few verses. When we get closer to the original manuscripts, we should be getting more accurate text, due to the nature of copying.

 

Of course that's not guaranteed, but it is logical.

 

My biggest complaint is that we do a diservice to new Christ followers when we persuade them to read a more difficulat translation like the KJV. The Shakespearean English and style is more difficult understand rather than a good modern translation.

 

I believe that the KJV is the most accurate, but if someone absolutely won't read it, and can't understand it, I would suggest they use the New King James Version.  It is the next best translation I have found. 

[One With Him]

First I want to thank everyone for their thoughts on this subject. I have concluded as I assumed when I posted this thread, the spirit is the true source for the leading of God's will. You can read a book but unless you have a relationship with the source you are still just reading a book. With all the the people on Worthy and the knowledge that everyone brings to this question and to still not be able to come to an agreement points out the need for us all to operate in the spirit more and in the flesh less.

 

God Bless. 

 

Thread can be closed.

[JTC]

Yes Sir Brother One With Him,

 

I agree with your conclusion. In my 30+ years of reading God's Word, there have been a few times I felt the need to check other translations against my favorite one. And of those times, even less often did checking other translations change my mind. It's true, without the Holy Spirit the Bible is a collection of old cut and dried books. The TV Guide is more interesting. But with the Holy Spirit the words of the Bible become almost alive. And the best proof of this is how many millions of people have had this experience.

 

God Bless You.

[Willa]

Butero, did you happen to catch some of the errors in the original 1611 KJV? I read that they left "not" out of Thou shalt not commit adultry in the 1631 printing. There were many versions of KJV before arriving at the last in 1880s and some pretty big errors were corrected. Hugh Broughton at the time criticised it for not being a word for word equivilance translation.

I do so agree with you that earliest does not equal best. The "oldest and best" Alexandrian text was likely altered by the gnostics to fit their cult's beliefs much as the Jehovah's witnesses have done to the New World Translation. I would consider the earliest to be the least reliable text. The Vaticanus and Siniaticus were less corrupted in my very unprofessional opinion. When I copy a page I am much more apt to leave something out than add to it by mistake. So shortest is not always best. I also make notes in my margins and understand that arguement for added material. But I find the critiria the translators used for superiority of the Critical text manuscript to be argumentive, and their calling them oldest and BEST to be questionable if their standards are suspect.

The most used and widely accepted by the Greek speaking people in the early church were the Majority texts, named majority for that reason. This was the main Tyndale/KJV source. I also find it more reliable in spite of the fact they were copied by amatures with many mistakes.

You might find the Analytical Literal Verson (ALT3) by Greek speaking, born again Gary F. Zeolla, of interest. Some of the versions that are done by teams soas to not offend very liberal churches are more suspect to me than this one. He is still considering criticism and refining his translation, by the way. He uses the latest Majority text.

The old American Standard Version was not corrupted by leaving out portions, either. While I also value the NEW American Standard Version, I read it with the frame of mind that most of the things they put into italics should be part of the text. The WEB verson seems OK, too, for a new more readable translation. It is also based on the majority text.

Most that endeavor to be literal in translation, word for word, I consider to be pretty reliable. I do object to paraphrases and would put them in the same category as the apochrapha and other religious inspirational material.

It is tragic that these claims of authenticity came up since it causes some to question the veracity of the Bible as being God's word at all. It should be emphasized that no Christian doctrine is in jeapordy due to these differences in Greek texts.

[Guest Butero]

I am not aware of any errors in the 1611 edition KJV Bible, and I don't see what a supposed ommission in a 1631 edition has to do with anything?  Since I don't have a re-print of a 1631 edition, I have no way to verify that claim, and even if it did occur, it was obviously just a mistake.  I remember getting an early Alexander Scourby Bible on tape, and it left something out by mistake that has been fixed in newer editions.  That is not a translation error, but a printing error.  The main thing I am concerned with is that the translation begin with the Textus Receptus and be as accurate as the translators can make it to the original manuscripts. 

[OneLight]

First I want to thank everyone for their thoughts on this subject. I have concluded as I assumed when I posted this thread, the Spirit is the true source for the leading of God's will. You can read a book but unless you have a relationship with the source you are still just reading a book. With all the the people on Worthy and the knowledge that everyone brings to this question and to still not be able to come to an agreement points out the need for us all to operate in the Spirit more and in the flesh less.

 

God Bless. 

 

Thread can be closed.

 

I will close this thread, since you are the OP.  Your state is so true.  Without the Holy Spirit teaching us, they are only words on a page and not a living document.

 

God Bless