Sorry, I see you did answer that already:
Quote:
|
While there is a problem with many sincere Christians believing that the new Greek basis is superior to the King James Bible, those who are arguing for a continuing Majority Text or a Textus Receptus basis are not much better, because the battle in regard to the original languages is overtaken by an entirely wrong approach, namely, that arguing for one Greek text form over another seems to bypass that God has provided His full truth in English.
|
But apparently I didn't notice because it was a lead-in to your main point about the uselessness of the argument about the Greek texts.
Thinking further about it, I don't think I'm really interested in getting embroiled in the Textus Receptus controversy, I just don't see why whatever the KJV translators used wouldn't be taken as the standard. Well, I do have another thought, that if a lack of perfection in the text is going to throw off people's faith, then don't we have to assume that for something like 1500 years nobody had a trustworthy Bible and how can that be? How can we think that God would only provide the last few centuries of believers with His pure word? And didn't the KJV translators affirm that previous Bibles were also the word of God?
But since the English language has changed and does trip up some very sincere readers, I see the need for updating, and that throws me back on the question of the underlying texts, since the updaters would be seeking the modern equivalent for the Greek words.
But again, very minimal updating. Because this gets off into other things too. I did get a copy of the Defined King James and I don't like the bolding of words in order to define them -- it distracts me while I'm reading -- or the repetition of the principles of definition. I personally don't have a problem with the majority of the words they have chosen to define so that continually drawing my attention to them is merely distracting. I'm aware of a few words being a problem for people, words like "prevent" and "dumb" which simply don't mean now what they meant in 1611 and those do need to be defined. It turns out I actually like my old King James better with its tiny print marginal notes (though I end up crossing out most of them because they too are distractions and not useful), even though it was my aunt's and she got it from the Bakkers' PTL club and it has their logo on it which is very annoying. It has an excellent index and concordance and maps too.