[ Home | Eschatology | Bible Studies | Classics | Articles | Sermons | Apologetics | Search | F.A.Q. ]

Author Topic: Why Use The KJV Translation?  (Read 14723 times)

kerryb

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 5
  • Gender: Male
Re: Why Use The KJV Translation?
« Reply #60 on: February 08, 2016, 11:43:33 AM »
Is there a KJV Large print Bible you could recommend?


Erik Diamond

  • Affiliate Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2210
  • Gender: Male
  • We are to God the aroma of Christ. (Eph 5:2)
Re: Why Use The KJV Translation?
« Reply #61 on: February 08, 2016, 12:43:10 PM »
Quote
Is there a KJV Large print Bible you could recommend?

Kerryb, try check with the link below to Amazon for Large Print KJV Bible:

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_2?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=kjv+big+print

Or pay a visit with your local Christian book store where you can shop for KJV big print book you like.  You can either buy one onsite, scan it with Amazon app to see if they will offer same product for less.

Erik
"For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts." (Isaiah 55:8-9)

John

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 536
  • Gender: Male
  • A man with God is always in the majority-John Knox
Re: Why Use The KJV Translation?
« Reply #62 on: February 08, 2016, 07:55:25 PM »
There are three main Greek Texts that are the foundation of the New Testament Bibles: Byzantine Majority Text, the Textus Receptus, and the Critical Text.

The Textus Receptus was the basis for the original KJB, and is based on about twenty Byzantine Greek texts that were available in the 1500's. Erasmus who created the so-called King James New Testament had only 6 manuscripts at his disposal. The later editions done by Beza and Stephanus of the KJB had more, but still the total Greek manuscripts were somewhere south of twenty-five. The complaint against the Textus Receptus family of Greek manuscripts is that they are rather late copies (about 1200 years after the originals) and represent such a small number of manuscripts.

The Critical Text is based on a small number of texts too, but they are older (about 150-300 years after the originals) and contain two almost full manuscripts of the New Testament (Aleph and Beta). These manuscripts were found in Alexandrian area of Egypt (dry and well persevered). The complaint against them is that they are full of mistakes (some intentional) from scribes in the early centuries and so it is likely the reason they were not copied (by scribes) and used extensively throughout the Mediterranean is because they were known to be untrustworthy, corrupted, and so were not copied extensively (thus the reason they are so few in number).

The Majority Text is simply an assemblage of the majority reading of all the extant Greek manuscripts now available (over 5,000 manuscripts). Since the Alexandrian text type (of the Critical Text) is so few in number and the Byzantine Text Form is most numerous (copied and used extensively throughout the then known world), the weight of evidence for each reading goes to the Byzantine text-type. It is assumed that the reason this text-type was copied so much by scribes was because they knew it to be trustworthy, else why copy it so much. The main criticism of the Majority Text is that most of the manuscripts are of a later period (many about 400 years after the originals were authored).

So today, the Bible you use is either based primarily on the Majority Text, Critical Text (most all modern Bibles), or Textus Receptus (KJV).

Since the Majority Text is based on far wider number of manuscripts than the small group of manuscripts used to make the KJB, it is no surprise that the Majority Text differs from the Textus Receptus (TR) in nearly 2000 places. This may seem like a lot of difference, but many are very minor. As an example, in the Alexandrian tradition of the Critical Text there was found over 3,000 differences between Aleph and Beta, their supposed two oldest and most reliable manuscripts. And that was just in the Gospels alone.

Now when you compare the Majority Text of the Byzantine tradition of manuscript against the Alexandrian tradition of the Critical Text you find differences in the NT numbering about 6,500 places (some dispute that and say 4,000 places - but it is a large number), with some 650 reading that are shorter in the Majority Text. Many of the variations are minor - it is only the significant variants that are the problem.

You can check your Bible to see which text it is based on ... if it says the Nestle-Aland critical edition of the Greek NT or the United Bible Societies Greek NT (by Bruce Metzger et al), then you know it is primarily built around the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus Manuscripts of the Critical Text (and the Chester Beatty and Bodmer papyri, if that matters). If it says rather that the translators used "The Greek NT According to the Majority Text" by Zane Hodges/Arthur Farstad or if it says, "The NT in the Original Geek According to the Byzantine/Majority Textform" by Maurice Robinson/William Pierpont, then you have a NT based on the Majority Greek Text.

The Majority Text was not simply a head count of the most numerous renderings, but is based on careful analysis of all the extant manuscripts (the rules for which is the better rendering is based on: Antiquity, Number, Variety, Continuity, Respectability of Witnesses, Context, and Internal Reasonableness). While some of these 5,000 manuscripts can be classified as copies of another earlier work, there is much differences among them that they cannot be just lumped together as copies of each other (they have no clear genealogical relationship).

It is likely that the original Greek manuscripts written by John, Paul, Peter, James, etc., of the NT Gospels and epistles were copied, as they were written on papyri and would deteriorate after a few decades. From the originals there would have been hundreds of first-generation copies made by different people (at different times and places). These scribes would be very careful not to make mistakes, but if one did occur it would not occur in every first generation copy, it is unlikely that even two copies would have the same mistake. As time went on and more copies of copies were made, the mistakes (if any) were still likely not to be identical. Thus, it can be argued that the Majority Text preserved the original text to a higher degree than a small number of manuscripts held in a localized area of Egypt, where direct corruption ruined the entire batch. If a scribe had an Alexandrian and a Byzantine text before him, he would have to determine which is the most reliable rendering before copying. The scribes weren't stupid, and they weren't about to just copy an odd rendering from Egypt when they had the greater attestation from a wide base of uniform renderings. The scribes were always watching for corrupted manuscripts, as it is happened heretics of various stripes were about trying to alter the texts (as did Marcion and Tatian did) to prove their heretical teachings.  The fact that the Alexandrian texts were not widely copied indicates that the scribes did not believe those readings were reliable.

So, it is the Majority Text of the Byzantine textform that was copied extensively for a period of over a thousand years (since AD 350 on) when manual copying was being done (prior to the printing press), and it was the dominant text used in churches and Bibles throughout the Greek-speaking regions. Egypt was a back-water area, with Gnostic activity. Those scribes did not have first-generation copies of manuscripts to make comparisons against as the originals did not head to Egypt but to eastern churches.

In the end, the Critical Text of the Egyptian manuscripts is older but unfaithful, corrupted, and holding large variations within its own text-type. Older is not necessarily better. Building a NT English text on inferior Greek manuscripts is only the beginning of the modern translation's problems. Next, the translators employ a dynamic equivalence form of translation that introduces new errors the heretics of Egypt never even imagined. Even if the Greek text were accurate, they decide to butcher the translation to make it fit preconceived theological ideas, or to conform to other NT texts in the hopes of eliminating perceived conflicts between it and other texts, or the translators just alter the text to make it easier to read (or to remove offensive ideas). Another group smooths and adjusts the text further for readability - knowing that most can't follow a text written to anything above a 5th grade reading level. This adjustment of the text ensures that the rather awkward prose of the Greek will lose its original meaning for the benefit to the masses of readability. It is consumer based marketing - people won't buy a version where then can't understand the more difficult syntax required to accurately render the Greek into English (which is required by the Greek as it is often written in a complex manner). Then comes the removal of non-gender inclusive pronouns and other PC nonsense, to ensure no one is offended, except those who wanted a faithful translation of the Greek.

Lastly, when you are reading in your NIV, BBE, NET, ESV, Moffatt, Rotherham, ISV, or NASB (or whatever modern version you have based largely on the Critical Text) and you see a comment in the margin that says, "the  oldest and best manuscripts do not have this verse or word", you should realize that the translator is ignoring all the arguments against the "oldest and best" line of reasoning, and is resting on those Egyptian manuscripts as if there was no valid argument against them (which there obviously is).

In fact, it would be more accurate and truthful to say that the modern text is based on the "oldest and most corrupted and unsubstantiated reading". To be more honest, a further explanatory note in the margin should add "Be aware, we don't care if its accurate, we don't believe the original authors were inspired, but we're just trying to satisfy a liberal committee that expects to make this Bible sell, so money can be made off of you. If you really wanted an accurate translation, why are you reading this? Now go back to sleep".

john
Si hoc signum legere potes, operis boni in rebus Latinus alacribus et fructuosis potiri potes!

Dwight

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 92
  • Gender: Male
  • That we keep his commandments 1 John 5:3
Re: Why Use The KJV Translation?
« Reply #63 on: February 09, 2016, 11:51:23 AM »
Quote
Why Use The KJV Translation?

Or to put it another way, why we don't use the NIV, BIBE, NRSV, BBE, NET, ESV, Living Bible, Moffatt, TEV/Good News, NEB, REB, Rotherham, ISV and a host of other distortions!

kerryb

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 5
  • Gender: Male
Re: Why Use The KJV Translation?
« Reply #64 on: February 09, 2016, 09:40:47 PM »
 &TY to both Erik and John.
kerry

Betty

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 327
  • Obviously I'm a Novice
Re: Why Use The KJV Translation?
« Reply #65 on: February 11, 2016, 10:30:47 AM »
It's all a lot of technical stuff that isn't worth a hill of beans when it comes to reading a bible we can understand.

Bible in Basic English] (Matthew 7:19)
Every tree which does not give good fruit is cut down and put in the fire.

Now isn't that a lot better than a tree that giveth not? No one talks like that. All this techno-babble proves is that the oldest manuscripts are the best, and that's what the modern versions use because they are closer to the original. Just makes sense.

Dana Pescator

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 95
  • I'm a llama!
Re: Why Use The KJV Translation?
« Reply #66 on: February 12, 2016, 12:57:02 AM »
Quote
Why Use The KJV Translation?

Why Christians Should Use the King James Bible

https://www.cai.org/files/theme-sheets/en/b/sb0093au.pdf




John

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 536
  • Gender: Male
  • A man with God is always in the majority-John Knox
Re: Why Use The KJV Translation?
« Reply #67 on: February 12, 2016, 11:11:40 PM »
Bibles based on Sephanus Textus Receptus, by F. H. A. Scrivener (1894):
Webster Bible (1833)
Young’s Literal Translation (1862-1898)
New King James Version (footnotes to the Majority Text & Eclectic Greek Text by Erwin Nestle of UBS (denoted NU), based on Minority Text, which is the basis of most all modern Bibles)
Defined King James Bible
King James Version2 (The Literal Translation of the Holy Bible)
King James for the 21st Century
King James 2000
Modern King James Version
Interlinear New Testament by Jay Green
Revised Webster Bible (1998)
The Third Millennium Bible

Based on the Majority Text of the NT:
World English Bible (WEB) - online version only, public domain
Analytical Literal Translation of the NT (ALT, by Gary Zeolla)
The English Majority Text Version of the NT (EMTV, by Paul Esposito)


The rest of the modern Bibles currently available are built around the Alexandrian texts. If you think the KJV is too hard to read, look for one of the versions above that has removed the archaic wording.
Si hoc signum legere potes, operis boni in rebus Latinus alacribus et fructuosis potiri potes!

Melanie

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 645
  • Gender: Female
  • Psalms 52:8
Re: Why Use The KJV Translation?
« Reply #68 on: November 20, 2016, 09:25:49 AM »

The rest of the modern Bibles currently available are built around the Alexandrian texts. If you think the KJV is too hard to read, look for one of the versions above that has removed the archaic wording.

I have never thought the KJV of the Bible too hard to read or the wording archaic. Old does not mean either bad or difficult. My folks raised me on the KJV and from a child neither I or my siblings had any problem using it. Not because we're smart, but because we didn't have the liberals telling us it was outdated, archaic and hard to read.  Whenever we had a problem with a particular word, we simply asked and we were told what it meant. What's difficult about that? People today are just lazy, it has nothing to do with this Bible being hard to read. If I ever have any children, I will raise them on the KJV. Not because it is perfect or any such nonsense, but because it is a good standard that the church should hold on to and avoid these modern version disasters at all costs. Just my two cents.

Peter

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 24
  • Obviously I'm a Novice
Re: Why Use The KJV Translation?
« Reply #69 on: February 11, 2017, 11:33:36 AM »
>>>
Is the ESV really that bad? I was given one at the Reformed Bible study I attend and was told it was faithful. :S_Confused:
<<<

Peter,
     I'm sorry to say you were told wrong. Rather than rehash this whole "it's just a matter of opinion" thing, I'll just give one example as a demonstration of the "clear" unfaithfulness of the thinking of the translators. Look at Luke 2:33.


 &TY That makes sense.

Puritan Heart

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 290
Re: Why Use The KJV Translation?
« Reply #70 on: July 16, 2017, 05:25:24 AM »
Greetings all,

A few years ago I happened upon this documentary.  After watching it repeatedly over a period of months and following up with some basic research, found it sufficiently beneficial in my own enquiries as to my personal preference in reading and adhering to the KJV.  I thus post it here for your information. 



Any and all serious comments welcome.

Alexandra

Habakkuk 3: 17 - 19

Oneil

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 90
  • I'm a llama!
Re: Why Use The KJV Translation?
« Reply #71 on: July 16, 2017, 09:28:33 AM »
The first one was good. Very long, but good. I'll take a break and watch the second later.

Melanie

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 645
  • Gender: Female
  • Psalms 52:8
Re: Why Use The KJV Translation?
« Reply #72 on: July 16, 2017, 10:05:07 AM »
Greetings all,
Any and all serious comments welcome.

Alexandra

 :GoodPopst: Hey Alexandra, haven't heard from you in a while. Hope everything is well. This is a refreshing education which is always good. Gonna have my niece and nephew watch it. Thanks.

Puritan Heart

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 290
Re: Why Use The KJV Translation?
« Reply #73 on: July 16, 2017, 11:32:08 AM »

 :GoodPopst: Hey Alexandra, haven't heard from you in a while. Hope everything is well. This is a refreshing education which is always good. Gonna have my niece and nephew watch it. Thanks.
[/quote]

Hello Melanie,

Thank you kindly for the welcome.  Our Holy Heavenly Father remains ever Faithful ... sometimes finding ourselves in situations we could not have imagined is no less a part of His eternal plan and purpose to bring us ever closer to Him and to fulfil that which He has preordained for our lives. I am daily encouraged by the awesome providences in the lives of our forefathers from the Old Testament ...

Having with time become increasingly convinced that we as believers and professors of the only True Faith through Christ Jesus, need to do much better in the way of coherent argumentation in that which we believe, thus, if we are to give an answer to those who ask it of us, we can and should do no less than seriously study.

1 Peter 3:15 But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:

I am delighted to be back and pleased you and Oneil were able to profit from these videos.  :)

Alexandra


Habakkuk 3: 17 - 19

Puritan Heart

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 290
Re: Why Use The KJV Translation?
« Reply #74 on: July 17, 2017, 04:03:02 PM »
Hello again,

I wish to add the 3rd video in the series ... some of it, rather than being repetitive, serves more as a reminder of what was shown in the previous 2 viewings.  They are approximaitely 3 hours viewing each, but well researched and crammed with information that the diligent viewer might consider as a base for personal study and research.

My fellow brothers and sisters in Christ, I implore you to *be Alert !!!* The nefarious works of the evil one are so much more subtle than we can ever begin to imagine. 


Ephesians 5:14 - Wherefore he saith, Awake thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead, and Christ shall give thee light.

Luke 21:36 - Watch ye therefore, and pray always, that ye may be accounted worthy to escape all these things that shall come to pass, and to stand before the Son of man.

Matthew 24:42 - Watch therefore: for ye know not what hour your Lord doth come.

Revelation 16:15 - Behold, I come as a thief. Blessed [is] he that watcheth, and keepeth his garments, lest he walk naked, and they see his shame.

1 Peter 1:13 - Wherefore gird up the loins of your mind, be sober, and hope to the end for the grace that is to be brought unto you at the revelation of Jesus Christ;

Luke 21:34 - And take heed to yourselves, lest at any time your hearts be overcharged with surfeiting, and drunkenness, and cares of this life, and [so] that day come upon you unawares.

1 Thessalonians 5:6 - Therefore let us not sleep, as [do] others; but let us watch and be sober.

Colossians 4:2 - Continue in prayer, and watch in the same with thanksgiving;

James 1:22-25 - But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves.   (Read More...)

Revelation 3:2 - Be watchful, and strengthen the things which remain, that are ready to die: for I have not found thy works perfect before God.

2 Thessalonians 3:3 - But the Lord is faithful, who shall stablish you, and keep [you] from evil.

Revelation 3:3 - Remember therefore how thou hast received and heard, and hold fast, and repent. If therefore thou shalt not watch, I will come on thee as a thief, and thou shalt not know what hour I will come upon thee.

2 Timothy 4:5 - But watch thou in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, make full proof of thy ministry.

With Love in Christ

Alexandra

PS.  Eric, my sincere apologies to you, but I could not find any videos with subtitles ...



Habakkuk 3: 17 - 19

 


[ Home | Eschatology | Bible Studies | Classics | Articles | Sermons | Apologetics | Search | F.A.Q. ]