Let me start my saying that my life verse became so over 18 years ago while I was reading a Cambridge KJV Bible.

Still, my position related to the topic of this thread is that it would be nice if (1) the KJV were to be revised with modern English equivalents words (or at least consistently distributed modern equivalent definitions in the margins), and (2) there are times when the KJV translation wasnt 100% accurate to the Hebrew/Greek. I.e, (1) + (2) = the KJV translation has just a little room for improvement.

Now NKJV did some to improve things (and especially in the NT, translated from the same greek manuscripts as the KJV did, a claim no other modern translation can make), but has it's own problems, thus making some people prefer to stick with KJV. Whatever.

The KJVO response to (1) appears to be, "No thank you, we can survive with a Webster's dictionary aid." Whatever.

The KJVO response to (2) appears to be, "Impossible, given the KJV translation itself is as God-breathed as the original manuscripts were." I think this is where the KJVO position gets into trouble.

I dont see how you can have a God-breathed translation that doesnt 100% agree with the original texts it is supposedly a translation of. Putting your faith in ~50 men that translated the greek manuscripts in 1611, or believing that God inspired them to get the translation 100% correct, as if they are on the same level as the Apostles themselves, or even that their translation supercedes whatever the original manuscripts say - even the KJV doesnt explicitly require you to believe this. A tenant of faith that says something that happened after the Apostle Paul and John and Peter etc wrote the NT is the final authority?

In this forum, when people are posting the NKJV text next to the KJV text in a given verse, they tend to argue that the KJV text is the correct rendering based on interpretation of the differences of the translations. Whereas others like me, might rather prefer whichever translation was truer, i.e., more literal, to the original Hebrew or Greek manuscripts, and however that translation ccomes out, base one's faith on that, plain and simple.

[Brother Tim]

Carl, just a few brief questions:

Do you have the originals with which to compare the English translations to confirm which is the most accurate, or to put it in your words, "...truer, i.e., more literal, to the original Hebrew or Greek manuscripts..." ?

Which scholar(s) work(s) do you use to determine the accuracy?

Who would you consider qualified to determine which words need to be changed?

Who are you going to trust to tell you that you finally have the Bible that you are expecting, since none currently qualify, based on your statements?

Do you have the originals with which to compare the English translations to confirm which is the most accurate, or to put it in your words, "...truer, i.e., more literal, to the original Hebrew or Greek manuscripts..." ?

No. I don't need the originals any more than the KJV translators did. I'll settle for whatever copies of the originals that the KJV translators had before them when they translated such into English. Even those copies may not be 100% accurate to the originals. But I don't believe the available manuscripts were unreliable enough that God said, "Looks like we will have to start over on this Scripture thing, let's God-breathe a KJV, and then all will be well."

Which scholar(s) work(s) do you use to determine the accuracy?

To determine the accuracy of the translation of the manuscripts used by the KJV translators, I'd compare to Greek Lexicons, Interlinear, NKJV translators, etc. etc. 20 years ago I had to buy books to access these things. Now on the internet, I can access these and many more with amazing ease. If they all come up with "strain OUT" as opposed to "strain AT", for example, it's probably strain OUT. Get over it. Your KJV translators didnt have the internet and weren't perfect in their theology either (it took hundreds of years after 1611 for all the Roman Catholic doctrine to be reformed out of the Church, but that's another thread).

Who would you consider qualified to determine which words need to be changed?

Don't you guys have a dictionary reference tool defining a bunch of dated KJV words? Whoever put that together is qualified. Translate all of them into modern english, starting with filthy lucre, then charity, then maketh. Kind of like what the NKJV was an attempt to do. No need to change Hebrews 9:28 btw.

Who are you going to trust to tell you that you finally have the Bible that you are expecting, since none currently qualify, based on your statements?

No one. If we ain't got a perfectly translated modern-English Bible yet, I'm not expecting one to show up at the last minute. Maybe KJV is the best thing going at the moment, or maybe NKJV is, my only point is that the KJVO crowd needs to chill a little, if the KJV didnt have at least a few problems, you wouldn't have to revert to this, "KJV is God-breathed!" argument, but would rather simply claim, "KJV is a 100% accurate translation of the available manuscripts." Given God hasn't provided a 100% accurate translation of the available manuscripts into modern English, we're all going to have to work a little to get to the truth, maybe a little less so, for those who dont speak King James, with the NKJV due to the usage of modern English. God is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him.

Originally Posted by hebrews928

I dont see how you can have a God-breathed translation that doesnt 100% agree with the original texts it is supposedly a translation of.

You don't see it YET, but God can open your eyes. Considering that was your first post, let me invite you to please read up on some of the material on this site starting here:
http://av1611.com/kjbp/

Putting your faith in ~50 men that translated the greek manuscripts in 1611, or believing that God inspired them to get the translation 100% correct...

As opposed to putting your faith in who, the men you gave us the NIV or NASV, or the RSV, or the NKJV, or...?

A tenant of faith that says something that happened after the Apostle Paul and John and Peter etc wrote the NT is the final authority?

Yes, God is preserving His Final Authority for people today. That's happening after the NT was written, and it's happening now. Meaning: (A) you don't have to learn Hebrew or Greek to understand God's Bible, and (B) the God who inspired the Bible is powerful enough to preserve it for you in English today.

In this forum, when people are posting the NKJV text next to the KJV text in a given verse, they tend to argue that the KJV text is the correct rendering based on interpretation of the differences of the translations.

It's not that difficult really.
It is estimated that the NKJV makes over 100,000 translation changes, which comes to over eighty changes per page and about three changes per verse! A great number of these changes bring the NKJV in line with the readings of such Alexandrian perversions as the NIV and the RSV. Where changes are not made in the text, subtle footnotes often give credence to the Westcott and Hort Greek Text. While passing off as being true to the Textus Receptus, the NKJV IGNORES the Receptus over 1,200 times.

Whereas others like me, might rather prefer whichever translation was truer, i.e., more literal, to the original Hebrew or Greek manuscripts, and however that translation ccomes out, base one's faith on that, plain and simple.

Well since you don't have the "original manuscripts," that pretty much bases your faith on smoke and mirrors. You need to understand that many of the word changes between the original KJV and the NKJV are not changes which result from updating archaic words, etc. Instead, many are changes which show that the NKJV translators departed from the original KJV and its underlying Greek text, the Textus Receptus, in favor of the very same wording found in versions translated from corrupted Greek texts. In short, there is no reason to base your faith on styrofoam when you have the preserved Word of the Living God...

[George]

Aloha heb928,

I would advise you to read at least the majority of the "Threads" and "Posts" on this Forum concerning The King James Bible, and why many of us believe that it is the Holy word of God preserved for us (perfect and without error), rather than "misstate" our beliefs on this extremely important issue.

All of your statements concerning what we truly believe are inaccurate and misleading. Not one of your statements honestly presents our position - as we have stated it on this Forum (over and over again).

If you are going to differ with us - you should, at least, GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT before you present your points; otherwise you look mighty foolish giving us "your personal view" of what we believe.

Read the "Threads" & "Posts" on this issue (on the Forum) - there are literally hundreds of them, and then come back with some "evidence" from the Threads & Posts supporting your statements about what (you think) we believe!

The following Threads & Posts are a just a few that have been have posted over the last few months - see if there are any statements that match up with your comments:

http://av1611.com/forums/showpost.ph...19&postcount=1
http://av1611.com/forums/showpost.ph...78&postcount=1
http://av1611.com/forums/showpost.ph...63&postcount=1
http://av1611.com/forums/showpost.ph...87&postcount=8
http://av1611.com/forums/showpost.ph...2&postcount=12
http://av1611.com/forums/showpost.ph...2&postcount=22
http://av1611.com/forums/showpost.ph...1&postcount=29
http://av1611.com/forums/showpost.ph...7&postcount=46
http://av1611.com/forums/showpost.ph...9&postcount=54

There are hundreds more (if you will take the time to search them out with the "Search" Function on this Forum). You may find some statements that you will disagree with, but you won't find any (coming from a genuine Bible believer) matching up with your "misstatements" about what we truly believe!.

[bibleprotector]

Originally Posted by hebrews928

it would be nice if (1) the KJV were to be revised with modern English equivalents words

Each particular word has meaning. Each has its own sound, and rhythm alters too. “Bewray” is not “betray”, “repentance” is not “do penance”, “heaven” is not just “sky”, etc. etc. Even the tiniest changes to the KJB violates the Scripture, “For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.” (Matthew 5:18).

there are times when the KJV translation wasnt 100% accurate to the Hebrew/Greek

Where is the INCORRUPTIBLE Word of God? “Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.” (1 Peter 1:23). Do we have to learn Hebrew and Greek to access it? And where is it in Hebrew and Greek?

the KJV translation itself is as God-breathed as the original manuscripts were.

That is a completely false accusation. First of all, God did not "breathe out", He inspired, and inspiration is not God merely whispering or something. And second of all, the KJB men were not inspired.

more literal, to the original Hebrew or Greek manuscripts

But there are variations in the originals. Which ones are right and when?

[George]

Aloha heb928,

Just in case you are not inclined to read all of the links that I gave you in my Post #184 (This Thread) - perhaps you will at least spend the time to read an "overview" of the Bible issue that I wrote years ago to a fellow brother in Christ:

http://av1611.com/forums/showpost.ph...3&postcount=69

Choosing which Bible to believe in and to follow should not be a matter of personal "PREFERENCE":

Your statement:

"Whereas others like me, might rather prefer whichever translation was truer, i.e., more literal, to the original Hebrew or Greek manuscripts, and however that translation comes out, base one's faith on that, plain and simple."

Choosing which Bible God "prefers" should be our ultimate goal; and it's hard to believe that our God needs to "update" his Holy word every year or so (only in English!), just to please modern day Christians "personal preferences".

[Gord]

Originally Posted by George

Aloha heb928,

Just in case you are not inclined to read all of the links that I gave you in my Post #184 (This Thread) - perhaps you will at least spend the time to read an "overview" of the Bible issue that I wrote years ago to a fellow brother in Christ:

http://av1611.com/forums/showpost.ph...3&postcount=69

Choosing which Bible to believe in and to follow should not be a matter of personal "PREFERENCE":

Your statement:Choosing which Bible God "prefers" should be our ultimate goal; and it's hard to believe that our God needs to "update" his Holy word every year or so (only in English!), just to please modern day Christians "personal preferences".

I thank you daily in my prayers for that advice brother George.
hebrews928 please take the time.

Bro Parrish,

God who inspired the Bible is powerful enough to preserve it for you in English today.

The only way to prove this would be to grab the Lexicons, grab the Innerlinear, and see if the translation of the greek into english was indeed legit. I claim you'd find occasional conflicts.

While passing off as being true to the Textus Receptus, the NKJV IGNORES the Receptus over 1,200 times.

And you claim the KJV doesn't also occasionally "ignore" the TR (ie, you claim the KJV translation of every greek word in the TR was right on)?

... many are changes which show that the NKJV translators departed from the original KJV and its underlying Greek text, the Textus Receptus, in favor of the very same wording found in versions translated from corrupted Greek texts.

Most of the time, the wording of the W-H = TR. Now how can you put your faith in the TR when it so often uses the same wording as W-H? Bro Parrish can't, which is why you have to instead put your faith in the KJV translation itself as Scripture (and we all know, all Scripture is God-breathed, 2Tim.3:16) and leave the available legit copies of the original manuscripts to gather dust.

Matt. 5:18 wasnt about the KJV translation.

Brother Tim,

Do you have the originals with which to compare the English translations to confirm which is the most accurate, or to put it in your words, "...truer, i.e., more literal, to the original Hebrew or Greek manuscripts..." ?

No. I don't need the originals any more than the KJV translators did. I'll settle for whatever copies of the originals that the KJV translators had before them when they translated such into English. Even those copies may not be 100% accurate to the originals. But I don't believe the available manuscripts were unreliable enough that God said, "Looks like we will have to start over on this Scripture thing, let's cook up a KJV, and then all will be well."

Which scholar(s) work(s) do you use to determine the accuracy?

To determine the accuracy of the translation of the manuscripts used by the KJV translators, I'd compare to Greek Lexicons, Interlinear, NKJV translators, etc. etc. If they all come up with "strain OUT" as opposed to "strain AT", for example, it's probably strain OUT.

Who would you consider qualified to determine which words need to be changed?

Don't you guys have a dictionary reference tool defining a bunch of dated KJV words? Whoever put that together is qualified. Translate all of them into modern english, starting with filthy lucre, then charity, then maketh. Kind of like what the NKJV was an attempt to do.

Who are you going to trust to tell you that you finally have the Bible that you are expecting, since none currently qualify, based on your statements?

No one. If we ain't got a perfectly translated modern-English Bible yet, I'm not expecting one to show up at the last minute. Given God hasn't provided a 100% accurate translation of the available manuscripts into modern English, we're all going to have to work a little to get to the truth.