Why The KJV Bible Is One Of The Best Bible Translation

[Omegaman 3.0]

23 hours ago, worthy said:

Are you saying that i am a kjv only reader? if so that's not true notice the title says why the KJV is one of the best translations 

Sure, but then in your op, you said:

On 1/12/2017 at 1:23 PM, worthy said:

The reason why the KJV bible translation is the best translation is . . .

So, you may not be a KJVonlyist, but you also cannot have it both ways.

Including the rest of the quote:

On 1/12/2017 at 1:23 PM, worthy said:

The reason why the KJV bible translation is the best translation is because some of the newer translations have taken out important verses.

My question is:

"What makes you certain that modern translation are missing verses? How do you know that the KJV does not contain added verses?"

Mind you, I am not saying that the KJV translators (who by the way predicted that better versions would appear, as better texts would be discovered). What I am suggesting is that the translators of the KJV had limited resources available to them. The depended on the writings of Erasmus,  was a Dutch Renaissance humanist, Catholic priest, who used the Latin Vulgate to fabricate Greek Texts in a sort of reverse engineering way. For the Old Testament, the KJV translators relied on the Masoretic text, these where relatively recent texts of Rabbinic Judaism.

Might it not be possible, in light of all of this, that older texts of Hebrew and Greek, would be more true to the original manuscripts, that what the KJV translators had available? Who among is, is qualified to make that determination of which texts are best?

and Ezra, Berry is just doing there what translators to, part translation, part interpretation. He interprets not perish to mean may not perish, but the "may" is not part of the Greek with any linguistic certainty, even if that is what the proper understanding is.

[Deborah_]

1 hour ago, OneLight said:

I do believe the words shall, should, or what ever is put into this sentence was done so to bring scripture up to modern times and is not part of the original sentence.  I say this because every book I look in or every site I look through does not have a number for any of these words.  If anyone can find a reference number (Gxxx), please let me know where you found it and what the reference number is.

'Shall' and 'should' are not in the Greek because they are 'auxiliary' words, required in English to mark tense because English has virtually given up on verb endings. In Greek, 'shall perish' or 'should perish' is just one word.

Now, 'should/shall perish' in John 3:16 is subjunctive in the Greek, which doesn't really have a straightforward English equivalent. So whether 'shall' or 'should' is correct is difficult to say. It's more than likely that 'should' was best 400 years ago, but subtle changes in English grammar mean that 'shall' is a better translation today.

[Ezra]

9 minutes ago, Omegaman 3.0 said:

"What makes you certain that modern translation are missing verses? How do you know that the KJV does not contain added verses?"

I will respond to this.  There are over 5,000 Greek manuscripts for the New Testament, and not all of them have been collated. But many have been collated and hence textual scholars have recognized that there are two streams of manuscripts.  

The majority (over 95%) form the Majority Text (also known as the Byzantine Text or the Received Text (Textus Receptus).  The remaining 5% constitute the Minority Text, and it is in the Minority Text that there are almost 9,000 deviations from the true text. Out of these there are about 66 missing verses. 

So, in terms of simple logic if 95% of the manuscripts agree, and 5% disagree, whom would you trust? Furthermore, all textual scholars recognized that the PREDOMINANT Greek text was the Majority Text. So we can be totally confident that those verse were NOT added, but subtracted for doctrinal reasons (keeping in mind that the Gnostics tampered with the text).

[Omegaman 3.0]

35 minutes ago, Yowm said:

Which Greek texts are you looking at since there are a number of them?

Stephanus TR 1550

Οὕτως γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν κόσμον ὥστε τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ τὸν μονογενῆ ἔδωκεν ἵνα πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων εἰς αὐτὸν μὴ ἀπόληται ἀλλ' ἔχῃ ζωὴν αἰώνιον

and
Nestle GNT 1904
Westcott and Hort 1881
RP Byzantine Majority 2005
Scrivener's TR 1894
and a few others, all say the same thing, word for word, and non have "should" or "shall" in them. As far as I can tell it is just implied in the minds of translators, to make it easier, more readable in Englsh, which is what all good translators should do. True word for word exact translation are next impossible to read sometimes. That is why not translation is perfect, because in the long run, we have to make a translation understandabie, or we miss the point that the word of God, is what He wants us to know.

[simplejeff]

23 minutes ago, Ezra said:

Even though the Greek says "may not perish", we have "should not", "shall not", and "will not" in various translations.

For strong comparison,   (not Strong's) ,

consider this : 

One hundred years ago,   Linus Pauling , Nobel Prize Winner for his work concerning Vitamin C ,

taught a class of 2000 students how to deal with SCURVY . 

He showed medically, biologically, historically, and with modern tests that SCURVY is from Vitamin C deficiency

and that simply by eating oranges, lemons, or other fruits with enough content of Vitamin C ALL of the SYMPTOMS/ EFFECT/ of Vitamin C deficiency on the body and mind were eliminated easily,  as well as always prevented if the Vitamin C was taken before the onset of the symptom of SCURVY.

Therefore, and forthwith,  he taught the entire class of 2000 students how to completely eliminate SCURVY

so that they all SHALL NOT SUFFER from SCURVY ever again.

(in other words:) They SHALL BE SAVED FROM SCURVY.  and They SHALL BE HEALED of SCURVY.

====================================================================

Simple, plain, straightforward scientifically true and medically proven in every way,

whether told and passed on

in ENGLISH or in ANY OTHER LANGUAGE (as far as I know)........

 

NOW TODAY ,   would it be correct to say

that NONE OF THOSE 2000 STUDENTS properly taught and trained

ever had or suffered from SCURVY again ?

(hint: no)

Even though they were given perfectly everything they needed to prevent and to cure SCURVY,

many of them , and their relatives, and a multitude of people since ,

have suffered from SCURVY (even though it was ENTIRELY PREVENTABLE and CURABLE) .

 

The teacher provided EVERYTHING NEEDED,  completely, so  that they

so that they should never suffer from SCURVY.  

He could have said DIRECTLY "You SHALL NEVER SUFFER AGAIN from SCURVY" ......

and yet,

many did..... (and do today)....

He could have said DIRECTLY and TRUTHFULLY:  "I TAUGHT YOU , so that YOU SHALL NOT SUFFER......"

....

(and he or many others, btw, DID TEACH THIS)

and yet many then and since then STILL SUFFER.....  

needlessly ? 

YHWH KNOWS. 

"MY PEOPLE PERISH...."

 

 

[Fran C]

1 hour ago, Omegaman 3.0 said:

Stephanus TR 1550

Οὕτως γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν κόσμον ὥστε τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ τὸν μονογενῆ ἔδωκεν ἵνα πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων εἰς αὐτὸν μὴ ἀπόληται ἀλλ' ἔχῃ ζωὴν αἰώνιον

and
Nestle GNT 1904
Westcott and Hort 1881
RP Byzantine Majority 2005
Scrivener's TR 1894
and a few others, all say the same thing, word for word, and none have "should" or "shall" in them. As far as I can tell it is just implied in the minds of translators, to make it easier, more readable in English, which is what all good translators should do. True word for word exact translations are next impossible to read sometimes. That is why no translation is perfect, because in the long run, we have to make a translation understandabie, or we miss the point that the word of God, is what He wants us to know.

Much is left to the translator.  Here's a good example of how difficult translating is:

Luke 2:14    Young's Literal Translation

Young's Literal Translation
'Glory in the highest to God, and upon earth peace, among men -- good will.'

Is it:  And upon earth peace to men of good will,  or

And upon earth peace and good will toward men.

??

[Omegaman 3.0]

3 hours ago, Ezra said:

So, in terms of simple logic if 95% of the manuscripts agree, and 5% disagree, whom would you trust? Furthermore, all textual scholars recognized that the PREDOMINANT Greek text was the Majority Text. So we can be totally confident that those verse were NOT added, but subtracted for doctrinal reasons (keeping in mind that the Gnostics tampered with the text).

Sorry Ezra, that is not simple logic, that is logical fallacy. By that logic, if 2000 years from now, future textual critics, found 5000 copies of the Message Bible, andt 30 copies of the KJV, you would side with the Message Bible as the one you would trust. Not buying the idea, that majority equals the best bet, good thing, or else Hillary would be president now!

"All textual scholars recognize" ? Oh please, you have to know that is not even remotely true. Even if that was true, it is just the same falacious argument, repackaged, predominant does not mean best, if just means numbers. It surprises me that people so want to go with common recent is better than chronological nearness to the originals, but that is a choice some make. They are entitled, but it does nothing to prove superiority.

I find it interesting, that Jesus and the apostles, quote old testament from Greek texts from Alexandria, but we prefer Hebrew from medieval Rabbinic Jews who rejected the Messiah. To each their own I guess. In any case, since I actually to not like this topic at all, I am bailing out to the thread for now. Have fun, be blessed!

[Fran C]

P.S.

I don't really want an answer.  Most will say On Earth Peace To Men of Good Will.

[Fran C]

3 minutes ago, Yowm said:

BGT John 3:16 οὕτως γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν κόσμον, ὥστε τὸν υἱὸν τὸν μονογενῆ ἔδωκεν, ἵνα πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων εἰς αὐτὸν μὴ ἀπόληται ἀλλ᾽ ἔχῃ ζωὴν αἰώνιον.

BYZ John 3:16 Οὕτως γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν κόσμον, ὥστε τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ τὸν μονογενῆ ἔδωκεν, ἵνα πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων εἰς αὐτὸν μὴ ἀπόληται, ἀλλ᾽ ἔχῃ ζωὴν αἰώνιον.

NA28 John 3:16 οὕτως γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν κόσμον, ὥστε τὸν υἱὸν τὸν μονογενῆ ἔδωκεν, ἵνα πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων εἰς αὐτὸν μὴ ἀπόληται ἀλλ᾽ ἔχῃ ζωὴν αἰώνιον.

Personally, I think the discussion borders on silly.

Yowm,

You're writing in Greek but you think the discussion is silly.

Can we be sure of our salvation?  This would not seem to be silly to me!

 

Fran

[OneLight]

1 hour ago, Fran C said:

OneLight,

I agree with what you've said.

SHALL and WILL is affirmative and Leaves not doubt.

But wouldn't you say that SHOULD and MAY do leave doubt?  May is not affirmative. This to say that I like SHALL the best.

If we believe in God's only Son, then we can be sure of our salvation.

 

Fran

I don't get into salvation issues as I cannot read another persons heart.  Neither do I get into online debates about OSAS and Eternal Security theories.  All I do know is that as long as I continue to have faith in Christ, there is nothing ever created that can take salvation from me.