Rom 8.1 KJV vs modern translations

[Speks]

I do wonder if the heading for this thread should have been: Romans 8:1: TR Editions vs Most Modern Translations (or Critical Text).

In a more generalised context (please note) relating primarily to the KJV highlighted in the title, it isn't that difficult to discredit the notion that the so-called 1611 version is the most dependable translation available (see just a couple of references below*). But who is listening? The real problem here is dealing with an underlying mindset that stubbornly clings to a tradition that's hampered by misunderstandings and the misreading of facts, a charge made in both directions! The big issue here is a deeply rooted bias against the balance of evidence. Why does this happen? At times it seems to bypass intelligence altogether.

Common sense tells us it's essential not to blindly buy into what gets dumped on our laps. Instead, as curious individuals we need to look carefully at as much information as possible to get a balanced overview of the facts. There is something in human nature that gets driven hard by suspicion and scepticism. So many suffer from conditioning that makes them worry about the unseen threat of conspiracies and sneaky manipulations. They will find them where they don't exist!

I remember exchanging messages with a man who called himself a Christian. He was passionate in his belief that man never got anywhere near the moon. It turned out (eventually) that he held to this notion as a consequence of believing the world is flat. But here's the thing: a lot of sincere people have a nook in their personalities that make them susceptible to conspiracy theories and other unfounded beliefs. So they run with them before they've thought it all through. I saw a young man recently who held up a placard that read: "The virus is a hoax". Seriously?

So, if someone came to me and said, "Hey! Your Bible version has deleted a bunch of words at Romans 8:1!" I'd reply, "Where did you learn that? The evidence shows that the narrow Greek textual base, unavoidably used by the KJV translators, included words that should never have been there. Isn't it wrong to add text to Scripture?" You can bet your boots the discussion would almost certainly boil down to an allegiance to a faith tradition that believes the KJV contains the pure text of inspired Scripture, accurate and free from corruption.

* For what it's worth (possibly not much!), do a YouTube search for The Myth of the King James Only — Tim Conway

See also: http://jesusiscreator.org/?p=45

.

Edited October 3, 2020 by Speks
Added text