Is this honest criticism against non KJV Bibles?

[z88]

Primarily that you are altering the original translated language? To translate it again past that point exposes a bias against the originally translated language and opens up this language to being corrupted. I know people might say they prefer the modern language, but the KJV is readable and you are exposing yourself to something by choosing a newer version, possibly.

[FriendofJonathan]

5 hours ago, z88 said:

Primarily that you are altering the original translated language? To translate it again past that point exposes a bias against the originally translated language and opens up this language to being corrupted. I know people might say they prefer the modern language, but the KJV is readable and you are exposing yourself to something by choosing a newer version, possibly.

I agree with you, in part. 

I enjoy reading the KJB in early modern English, not only because I am fond of the language itself, but because it is a trusted translation of the ancient languages.  

Many will remark, because the KJB translators used Greek  manuscripts 1,000 or more years removed from the autographs, and that we possess much older manuscript evidence since 1611, the newer translations are justified based on the older manuscript evidence.  I also agree with this in part.   

The issue I have with the argument that the older (oldest) manuscript evidence is better, is that regardless of it being older, it changes very little of the KJB text (less than .01%). 

The only issue I have with the KJBO argument is that not everyone appreciates early modern English, no one speaks early modern English, and many do not speak English at all.  Thus, modern literal translations in English and other languages does not rob the readers of anything other than the Elizabethean English text of 1604. 

Concerning the manuscript evidence available in 1604-1611, and the newer older manuscript evidence today, modern translators are doing exactly what the KJB translators did in 1604-11, that is: textual criticism to determine a final translation. 

On another note:  In 1604, the KJB translators were given guidance by the Archbishop of Canterbury, via orders of King James, to use the Bishops Bible as their main guide, and to use the Bible translations of Tyndale, Matthew's, Coverdale, Whitchurch, and Geneva, when those Bibles agreed better than the text of the Bishop's Bible. 

The translators were also ordered by King James through the Archbishop to refrain from using the words  "congregation" or "assembly" whenever the Greek text used the word "ekklesia."  And wherever the word "tyranny or tyrant" was used, it was to be replaced with a word less apt to arouse ill-will toward the King.  In most cases, translators used the word "terrible" in place of "tyranny."

In the end, the KJB translators employed the same sort of textual criticism that modern-day translators employ. And for the KJB NT, between 80 and 85% of the text is word-for-word from William Tyndale's NT.  About 15% of the KJB OT is from Tyndale's work on the OT (Tyndale completed translating only a few books of the OT before his capture and execution).  

All in all, any Bible that is considered a literal translation is a good choice, for it is a translation of God's preserved word in the English language that even the plough boy can understand it. 

[Vine Abider]

12 hours ago, z88 said:

Primarily that you are altering the original translated language? To translate it again past that point exposes a bias against the originally translated language and opens up this language to being corrupted. I know people might say they prefer the modern language, but the KJV is readable and you are exposing yourself to something by choosing a newer version, possibly.

I'm having trouble understanding the meaning of your post.  Are you suggesting that translations newer than the KJV might have undo bias?  Just trying to understand . . .

[z88]

13 minutes ago, Vine Abider said:

I'm having trouble understanding the meaning of your post.  Are you suggesting that translations newer than the KJV might have undo bias?  Just trying to understand . . .

Yes, somewhat. If the newer translations are just translating the same text the KJV is translating doesn't it expose a bias against the original translation and the language it arrives at?

[other one]

12 hours ago, z88 said:

Primarily that you are altering the original translated language? To translate it again past that point exposes a bias against the originally translated language and opens up this language to being corrupted. I know people might say they prefer the modern language, but the KJV is readable and you are exposing yourself to something by choosing a newer version, possibly.

Many of the modern translations go beyond just restating something to be easier to understand, they use different original manuscripts.  I think that is partly what FriendofJohnathan was saying in greater detail. 

Also, greater understanding of the local customs and beliefs of the population in Jesus time may add a different context to understanding the original Hebrew or Greek.  

[Vine Abider]

7 minutes ago, z88 said:

Yes, somewhat. If the newer translations are just translating the same text the KJV is translating doesn't it expose a bias against the original translation and the language it arrives at?

Well, and as @FriendofJonathan was pointing out, the KJV translators had their own bias.  They were given edicts by the king to translate various things in a certain way.  My biggest objection to the KJV is how they were directed to translate "ekklesia" as "church," and not the clear meaning of "assembly" or "congregation."  This has lead to confusion and poor understanding of that word.  However, most modern translators continue to use "church" generally because it is now just quite ingrained in the culture. 

[missmuffet]

People have a choice to read the Bible that they want to read. To tell someone that the KJV Bible is the only Bible

that a Christian should read is wrong.

[Sower]

31 minutes ago, other one said:

Also, greater understanding of the local customs and beliefs of the population in Jesus time may add a different context to understanding the original Hebrew or Greek.  

For sure.  When people in biblical times were stoned for adultery or even a son who was disobedient to his parents and refused to listen to their commands, is not what a person today would mean when saying, 'hey dude, lets go get stoned'...

[other one]

6 minutes ago, Sower said:

For sure.  When people in biblical times were stoned for adultery or even a son who was disobedient to his parents and refused to listen to their commands, is not what a person today would mean when saying, 'hey dude, lets go get stoned'...

Well, considering the two times I did do that, maybe it shouldn't change. LoL

[FriendofJonathan]

3 hours ago, Vine Abider said:

Well, and as @FriendofJonathan was pointing out, the KJV translators had their own bias.  They were given edicts by the king to translate various things in a certain way.  My biggest objection to the KJV is how they were directed to translate "ekklesia" as "church," and not the clear meaning of "assembly" or "congregation."  This has lead to confusion and poor understanding of that word.  However, most modern translators continue to use "church" generally because it is now just quite ingrained in the culture. 

The part about the KJB translators using church over congregation is striking, not only because of the Kings edict, but especially since the KJB translators used up to 85% of Tyndale's NT, which used the word "congregacion" in his NT.