Quote:
Originally Posted by jerry
Can you give actual concrete difference between Scrivener's TR and the KJV?
|
Second that. We know bro Hill's pedigree and testimony. What's yours? I only ask because of Hill's plain statement coupled with your emphatic dissent from it. NOTE: I'm not saying one has to be a bona-fide textual scholar in order to disagree with bro. Hills. I'm simply asking if you are? Either way, you should state that to prevent your "correction" of bro Hills from sounding provocative. Your statement was provocative and I guess I got provoked :O).
Quote:
|
Basically, instead of doing an Erasmus, or Stephanus or Beza job, the translators gathered out of multiple sources and rendered it in English. They coupled "translation" with their "textual selection" work.
|
And all Scrivener did was come along behind them and do a greek text whose goal was to match the KJV's greek decisions. Scrivener shows in his book (The Authorized Bible) that the KJV translators' greek decisions were no longer very well documented. So he did the next best thing: come along behind them working from english and developing a greek text that matches it.
Quote:
|
I believe and present the view that the King James Bible is perfect in English because it has gathered the correct text from the original languages, and has been translated exactly, and that through a process of editorial work in time, we have the exact presentation of the King James Bible without printing error or unstandardised spelling, etc.
|
I don't see any significant difference between your position and that of Hills'. Scrivener said ther choices were not very well documented anymore and so the only way to reproduce their greek decisions in a single text was to start from the KJV and work towards the greek with it.