If This Forum Is Any Indicator....
- Thread starter Binaca Chugger
- Start date
BALAAM said:
I've been told that the vast majority of the changes were spelling and punctuation. I don't recall anyone saying that there were NO changes.
You left out correcting printing errors; I'm not sure if this counts as a "change" or not. The most famous printer error was leaving out "not" in the commandment "Thou shalt not commit adultery". As I recall, the printer was fined an enormous sum for that error -- over a year's income -- possibly 2 or 3 year's worth.
The KJV also has textual errors that are not found in any Greek or Hebrew mss
... translation errors
... transmission errors
... translation errors
... transmission errors
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2012
- Messages
- 11,066
- Reaction score
- 2,152
- Points
- 113
- Location
- Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Walt said:
If the "vast majority" were spelling and punctuation changes, doesn't that imply that a small minority of changes were corrections not having to do with mere spelling and punctuation?
So much for the "inerrancy" of the KJV.
Ransom said:
Agreed. I don't see how the people who think the 1611 KJV is inerrant, when there were clearly a few changes in the text. There were just a handful, as I recall, but even one is enough to disprove the idea that the 1611 KJV was given by inspiration.
Having said that I do confess to being a huge supporter of the KJV; I am opposed to the looney-tune fringe that has turned it into something it isn't.
FSSL said:
So they said in the defense of the new versions, but I found the proof lacking... statements such as they were generally based upon their own corrupt texts differing from the Received Text, or by some "big name" just saying it.
Walt said:
The KJV doesn't even perfectly follow the so-called Received Text or Hebrew.
The KJVO sets up this standard that the KJV is perfect, therefore, it is the Word of God. We know it is not perfect. If perfection is what makes the KJV, God's Word, then certainly that perfection would have been evident since 1611 with absolutely no modifications.
For example, the KJV in Hebrews 10.23 "profession of faith" really is "profession of hope."
This has nothing to do with a difference among the mss or "some big name." It is an error.
FSSL said:
I looked this up. The word (if I remember) is elpis; it is translated as "hope" everywhere in the New Testament except for this place in Hebrews.
I don't know your background, but 47 incredibly scholarly men thought that the best translation here was "faith" - each one passed on that translation, usually multiple times. It's sad that we don't have the notes of the discussions here, but I'll go with them... unless you want to tell me that you have known Greek and Hebrew languages as a child and are an expert in these and related languages.
Walt... that is just an "argument by authority." It is one of the most common logical fallacies the KJVO rests on.
The word "elpis" means "hope."
If "faith" was intended, then the word would be "pistis."
I have studied Greek and Hebrew, but I will not make that the basis of my answer. Why? Because, words have meanings. People can wrongly translate. Native speakers use the wrong words all of the time. No man (or group of men) is perfect. There were only 7 men on that committee, translating Hebrews.
The onus is on you to prove that "elpis" can mean, or has ever meant "faith."
The word "elpis" means "hope."
If "faith" was intended, then the word would be "pistis."
I have studied Greek and Hebrew, but I will not make that the basis of my answer. Why? Because, words have meanings. People can wrongly translate. Native speakers use the wrong words all of the time. No man (or group of men) is perfect. There were only 7 men on that committee, translating Hebrews.
The onus is on you to prove that "elpis" can mean, or has ever meant "faith."
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2012
- Messages
- 11,066
- Reaction score
- 2,152
- Points
- 113
- Location
- Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Walt said:
Nowhere near "47 incredibly scholarly men" had anything to do with the translation of Hebrew 10:23.
The epistles, including Hebrews, were translated by the second Westminster committee, which consisted of seven men. Once the six translation committees had completed their work, the whole Bible was reviewed and edited by a general committee consisting of a member of each committee. So a distinct minority of the translators had any direct say on the translation of elpis in Hebrews 10:23.
Which is not to say that the second Westminster committee, the General Committee of Review, or even the whole group of 47 translators would of necessity have gotten it right. It was a big project, and that was a small word.
Ransom said:
Each of the men on the committee privately translated the entire portion of Scripture given to them. Then, every man's work was reviewed by every other man in the group. The group had to be unanimous that the translation was accurate and faithful to God's word. So, there were seven different translations of Heb 10:23 by scholars suited to do so. Then, each of the seven translations was reviewed by the other six. Thus, Heb 10:23 was scrutinized 49 times. We don't know of their deliberations, as the notes were lost in a fire; however, what came out of all that was that "faith" was the best translation here.
Anyway, after this, they reviewed translations from other languages - it was said of this effort that the committee met together and read that translation, the rest holding in their hands some Bible, either of the learned tongues, or French, Italian, Spanish, etc. If they found any fault, they spoke; if not, he read on. Another read-through with 7 men checking. Another 7 experts considering the Heb 10:23 text (56 checks so far).
Next, their finished product went to the other five committees. This gives another 40 men the opportunity to check the work. (96 checks, assuming each man did but one check). Each of the other five committees must give a unanimous vote on the translation work.
Finally, a "final" committee was formed in 1610 to go over the entire Bible (I think this is what you referred to above). Assuming six men (one from each committee), that is another 6 checks of Heb 10:23, bringing the "checking" of Heb 10:23 to 102 checks of the wording.
You seem to imply that the men were slipshod and just careless here. I think translation is not as simple as "X always means A" and "Y always means B"... words aren't always this simple. Yes, the word used in Heb 10:23 is everywhere else translated "hope". But I will still trust the extensive scholarship of the 47 men, all of when had a chance to object to the wording. If they departed from the word "hope" in this context, they had, no doubt, excellent reasons.
Walt said:
Well... the logical fallacy of "appeal to authority" is where many find their comfort.
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2012
- Messages
- 992
- Reaction score
- 50
- Points
- 28
I use the New King James Version in my personal study now but used the KJV exclusively for 50 years and realize that many words used 400 years ago have changed dramatically from today's use. For that reason alone I believe as comforting and familiar as the King James is for many of us older people a modern translation is invaluable.FSSL said:
When I started reading modern translations many passages opened up for me in ways that I had never seen before and I soon realized what I had been missing by only using what I had grown up with. The NKJV slso translates Hebrews 10:23 as "Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering," but what is the main difference between "hope" and "faith" in that particular passage? Why do you think the 1611 translators decided on the word "faith,?"
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2012
- Messages
- 6,965
- Reaction score
- 100
- Points
- 48
Since the editor of the NKJV believed that the KJV was translated from inferior texts, and wrote a book about it: seeing any preference to CT readings or translations in the NKJV only reveals his critical influence and bias, and not any scholastic superiority.
earnestly contend
earnestly contend
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2012
- Messages
- 11,066
- Reaction score
- 2,152
- Points
- 113
- Location
- Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
prophet said:
The NKJV New Testament was translated from the Textus Receptus, as the preface states: "because the New King James Version is the fifth revision of a historic document translated from specific Greek texts, the editors decided to retain the traditional text in the body of the New Testament and to indicate major Critical and Majority Text variant readings in the footnotes."
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2012
- Messages
- 4,013
- Reaction score
- 8
- Points
- 38
James Price
Dr. James D. Price was the executive editor of the Old Testament of the New King James Version. Price was formerly Chairman and Professor of the Department of Old Testament, Temple Baptist Theological Seminary, Chattanooga, Tennessee. Price has been retired since 2005.
Dr. James D. Price was the executive editor of the Old Testament of the New King James Version. Price was formerly Chairman and Professor of the Department of Old Testament, Temple Baptist Theological Seminary, Chattanooga, Tennessee. Price has been retired since 2005.
- Joined
- May 5, 2016
- Messages
- 15,057
- Reaction score
- 1,056
- Points
- 113
Ransom said:
And the RV 1881 is a revision of the King James, as the preface states. We all know how that turned out.
Everyone knows that the main problem with the NKJV is the reinsertion of the ASV into the text.
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2012
- Messages
- 11,066
- Reaction score
- 2,152
- Points
- 113
- Location
- Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Twisted said:
By "everyone knows," we all know you mean "KJV-only fables say," right?
- Joined
- May 5, 2016
- Messages
- 15,057
- Reaction score
- 1,056
- Points
- 113
Ransom said:
You don't think the other side is going to admit it, do you?
This is one of the reasons good men who supported it jumped off that ship.
I could care less if you believe it or not.