Quote:
|
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.
|
This is actually why the Greek is secondary to the English now.
Quote:
|
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.
|
Except that Scrivener never got there, and no one can get there in or with the Greek.
I believe there is a lot of power in the argument that since we have the Bible certainly in a language we can understand, that there is no need to reconstruct in Greek, nor to use the Greek in any primary way: the authority of it was essentially transferred into the English in 1611, both in text and the sense.
1. There is no extant authoritative single presentation of the Greek text of the New Testament, nor a sure or certain method which might be employed to divine it, whereas we have a received text in English now available and manifested to the world.
2. There is no present certain understanding or meaning of every Greek word of the New Testament, nor is there a consistent method present that might be utalised to understand the Greek properly, however, we have a translation bequeathed to us in English which is the Word of God to the world.