Tweet
You say the KJV is the only true version of God's Word.
Well then how do you explain:
Jesus and his Disciples would have likely spoken Aramaic. The early Christians and New Testament writers used Greek. The Torah that Jesus held sacred was written in Hebrew.
Since the original publication of the KJV, many new source documents, such as the Dead Sea Scrolls, have been discovered, and other archaeological research has been done in the last 400 years.
The Greek text on which the King James Version is based is the Greek New Testament published by Robert Estienne (or 'Stephanus') in 1550. Stephanus's New Testament was based on a small collection of Byzantine manuscripts, none predating the year A.D. 1200. Some scholars argue that the older a manuscript is the more reliable it is, but this is debated.
According to the translation theory of Eugene Nida, literal translations (like the KJV) in effect are more inaccurate with respect to the meaning of the original text than those translations which sacrifice formal features of the source text to achieve greater accuracy in meaning (see Dynamic and formal equivalence). Additionally, it could be argued that the language of the 1611 edition was already becoming outdated even at the time it was printed. Changes in language and usage leading to obscured meaning is a continuous problem, creating a strong argument against one fixed translation for all time for the "common people" to read.
With respect to theological bias, supporters of modern versions point to the fact that these translations are often done by committees of Christians from various denominations, while the KJV translation committee was strictly Anglican.
The KJV is said to be a theologically sound translation which maintains pure doctrine, where modern translations are corrupt in this respect. The KJV Only advocates are split between Independent Baptists and Reformed Protestants (Calvinists) who do not agree between themselves on their theological positions.
The "KJV Only" position assumes that there is one definitive KJV, when in fact there were many editions and revisions. What most Christians call the "KJV" today is not the KJV of 1611. The "KJV" today is from the 1769 version, the last year it was revised. The removal of the Apocrypha, which was in earlier editions, is just one of many changes that have occurred over the years.
The suggestion that modern translators are somehow adding to scripture or changing scripture as the Bible expressly forbids is not necessarily true. A modern translator ideally believes whole-heartedly that the original scriptures (the source documents) must not be added to or changed, but that the translator has a duty to try and translate those documents in the best way possible. The modern-day translator is seeking to bring the Bible message to people "in words they can understand." Also, they point out several passages (John 1.18, Romans 9.5, Titus 2.13, II Peter 1.1) where the divinity of Jesus in modern translations is more explicit than in the KJV.
The pleasantness of the KJV is a matter of opinion, and not a fact.
It has been asserted by some modern groups that since the KJV translators worked on behest of King James of England and Scotland, they did not edit it for everyone's benefit, as much as for his benefit, thus producing a biased wording.
The KJV refer to the Holy Spirit as "it" and not "He" in several passages. Almost all Protestant denominations hold that the Holy Spirit or Holy Ghost is a person and not a thing or energy. These passages are: John 1:32, Romans 8:16,26, and 1 Peter 1:11.
You say you are true Christians-you are part of the Rebel Alliance and a traitor. Take them away!
Well then how do you explain:
Jesus and his Disciples would have likely spoken Aramaic. The early Christians and New Testament writers used Greek. The Torah that Jesus held sacred was written in Hebrew.
Since the original publication of the KJV, many new source documents, such as the Dead Sea Scrolls, have been discovered, and other archaeological research has been done in the last 400 years.
The Greek text on which the King James Version is based is the Greek New Testament published by Robert Estienne (or 'Stephanus') in 1550. Stephanus's New Testament was based on a small collection of Byzantine manuscripts, none predating the year A.D. 1200. Some scholars argue that the older a manuscript is the more reliable it is, but this is debated.
According to the translation theory of Eugene Nida, literal translations (like the KJV) in effect are more inaccurate with respect to the meaning of the original text than those translations which sacrifice formal features of the source text to achieve greater accuracy in meaning (see Dynamic and formal equivalence). Additionally, it could be argued that the language of the 1611 edition was already becoming outdated even at the time it was printed. Changes in language and usage leading to obscured meaning is a continuous problem, creating a strong argument against one fixed translation for all time for the "common people" to read.
With respect to theological bias, supporters of modern versions point to the fact that these translations are often done by committees of Christians from various denominations, while the KJV translation committee was strictly Anglican.
The KJV is said to be a theologically sound translation which maintains pure doctrine, where modern translations are corrupt in this respect. The KJV Only advocates are split between Independent Baptists and Reformed Protestants (Calvinists) who do not agree between themselves on their theological positions.
The "KJV Only" position assumes that there is one definitive KJV, when in fact there were many editions and revisions. What most Christians call the "KJV" today is not the KJV of 1611. The "KJV" today is from the 1769 version, the last year it was revised. The removal of the Apocrypha, which was in earlier editions, is just one of many changes that have occurred over the years.
The suggestion that modern translators are somehow adding to scripture or changing scripture as the Bible expressly forbids is not necessarily true. A modern translator ideally believes whole-heartedly that the original scriptures (the source documents) must not be added to or changed, but that the translator has a duty to try and translate those documents in the best way possible. The modern-day translator is seeking to bring the Bible message to people "in words they can understand." Also, they point out several passages (John 1.18, Romans 9.5, Titus 2.13, II Peter 1.1) where the divinity of Jesus in modern translations is more explicit than in the KJV.
The pleasantness of the KJV is a matter of opinion, and not a fact.
It has been asserted by some modern groups that since the KJV translators worked on behest of King James of England and Scotland, they did not edit it for everyone's benefit, as much as for his benefit, thus producing a biased wording.
The KJV refer to the Holy Spirit as "it" and not "He" in several passages. Almost all Protestant denominations hold that the Holy Spirit or Holy Ghost is a person and not a thing or energy. These passages are: John 1:32, Romans 8:16,26, and 1 Peter 1:11.
You say you are true Christians-you are part of the Rebel Alliance and a traitor. Take them away!
Comment