Quote:
Originally Posted by realitykid
- The KJV translators were limited in the manuscripts available to them. The Dead Sea Scrolls had not been discovered yet (1947). (See The Dead Sea Scroll Bible: The Oldest Known Bible Translated For the First Time into English by Abegg, Flint, and Ulrich, published by Harper San Fancisco, 1999; also see The Text of the Old Testament by Ernst Wurthwein published by Eerdmans, 1979; Textual Criticism: Recovering the Text of the Hebrew Bible by P. Kyle McCarter published by Fortress Press, 1986). Ancient Greek manuscripts had not yet been uncovered. Aleph, a fourth century AD codex, was discovered in 1859 by Tischendorf in the monastery of St. Catharine at Mt. Sinai. Codex Vaticanus from fourth century AD at the great Vatican Library at Rome was not made available until a photographic facsimile was published in 1889-90.(See The Text of the New Testament By Bruce Metzger published by Oxford University Press, 1964).
|
Where did the NIV translators use the Dead Sea Scrolls? It certainly wasn't in Isaiah. The DSS version of Isaiah is quite different than what is in the KJV or the NIV. No, they used the same Masoretic Text for the Old Testament that the translators of the KJV used.
Quote:
Originally Posted by realitykid
- The current KJV being printed differs in a number of details from the KJV 1611. There are also numerous printing errors in different editions of the KJV. The 1611 editions have "Then cometh Judas" instead of "Then cometh Jesus" in Matthew 26:36. There is the "Wicked Bible" edition of the KJV where "not" is omitted from the seventh commandment saying, "thou shalt commit adultery." William Kilburne in 1659 found 20,000 errors in six different KJV's. In 1701 Bishop Lloyd added the chronology of Bishop Ussher. Even today there are differences between the KJV published by Oxford, Cambridge, and Nelson publishers (See The English Bible from KJV to NIV: A History and Evaluation by Jack P. Lewis, published by Baker, 1981).
|
That somehow proves that the KJV isn't the best translation?
Quote:
Originally Posted by realitykid
- The original KJV 1611 included the Apocrypha. Is only part of the KJV 1611 or is all of it inspired by God? How can it be the perfect translation if it has the Apocrypha?
|
The Apocrypha has never been considered canon. Another non-issue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by realitykid
There are several animals mentioned in the KJV that are mythical
|
Sorry, but the NIV writers have the same names in their Greek sources. They are the ones who have decided that a unicorn is actually a rhinoceros. A large fish is actually a whale. They are the ones injecting their agendas into the Word of God to make it sound more scientific.
Quote:
Originally Posted by realitykid
- The KJV uses the term "dragon" which comes from the Greek word drakon which means "serpent."
|
That is an out and out lie. Greek mythology called a drakon a dragon, a hydra or a chimera.