Important Announcement

See here for an important message regarding the community which has become a read-only site as of October 31.

 
Post Reply
Page 1 of 5  •  1 2 3 4 5 Next
Switch to Forum Live View KJV: Translation from Inferior Text?
10 years ago  ::  Jan 29, 2008 - 8:35PM #1
CalKnox
Posts: 330
Quoted on another thread-

MIchael Gorman in Elements of Biblical Exegesis:

"The King James Version (KJV) or Authorized Version (AV) was produced in 1611 by a team of translators.  They generally followed an implicit theory of formal equivalence, but, unfortunately, they worked with generally late and less reliable biblical manuscripts.  Since 1611, many older and better manuscripts of the Bible have been discovered, and modern research in the area of textual criticism (which includes comparing and contrasting manuscripts to produce a "critical edition" of the original text) has given us a differnent basis of original texts to translate than that used by the KJV translators.  This means that an exegesis using the KJV may sometimes be analyzing one or more words, phrases, and verses that did not actuall appear in the original biblical text.

"In addition, biblical scholarship and linguistics have both progressed significantly in the last four hundred years, providing countless pieces of data and perspectives for translating texts more accurately.  Moreover, the English language has changed enormously in the same four hundred year period, rendering much of KJV's language obsolete.  Taken together, these factor mean that the King James Version is completely unacceptable as the basis for serious, scholarly study of the Bible.  The New King James Version (NKJV) released in 1979 (NT) and 1982 (OT), updates obsolete language and attempts to be a more linguistically sophisticated translation than the KJV.  However, because it is based upon the same problematic manuscript tradition, it too is unacceptable for exegesis."

Granted, serious scholarly work must consult the Hebrew and Greek texts (but, which ones?).  However, it would be interesting to consider one or more specific "problematic" texts in alleging the obsolesce of the KJV and the inferiority of the manuscripts upon which it is based.
Quick Reply
Cancel
10 years ago  ::  Jan 29, 2008 - 8:47PM #2
CalKnox
Posts: 330
I've recently gone from use of the NKJV in the reading of Scripture in public worship to exclusive use of the KJV.

That does not mean I ignore the original language texts in sermon preparation.

The KJV is entirely adequate for reading and exposition, though an occasional archaic word or grammar may require explanation.

The false teaching of the inspiration of the KJV translators (“KJV Onlyism”) is a heresy.  The KJV is not a flawless translation; only less so than many modern translations.

Occasionally, I must address in the sermon the alleged discrepancies in so called “earliest and most reliable manuscripts.”
Quick Reply
Cancel
10 years ago  ::  Jan 29, 2008 - 8:35PM #3
CalKnox
Posts: 330
Quoted on another thread-

MIchael Gorman in Elements of Biblical Exegesis:

"The King James Version (KJV) or Authorized Version (AV) was produced in 1611 by a team of translators.  They generally followed an implicit theory of formal equivalence, but, unfortunately, they worked with generally late and less reliable biblical manuscripts.  Since 1611, many older and better manuscripts of the Bible have been discovered, and modern research in the area of textual criticism (which includes comparing and contrasting manuscripts to produce a "critical edition" of the original text) has given us a differnent basis of original texts to translate than that used by the KJV translators.  This means that an exegesis using the KJV may sometimes be analyzing one or more words, phrases, and verses that did not actuall appear in the original biblical text.

"In addition, biblical scholarship and linguistics have both progressed significantly in the last four hundred years, providing countless pieces of data and perspectives for translating texts more accurately.  Moreover, the English language has changed enormously in the same four hundred year period, rendering much of KJV's language obsolete.  Taken together, these factor mean that the King James Version is completely unacceptable as the basis for serious, scholarly study of the Bible.  The New King James Version (NKJV) released in 1979 (NT) and 1982 (OT), updates obsolete language and attempts to be a more linguistically sophisticated translation than the KJV.  However, because it is based upon the same problematic manuscript tradition, it too is unacceptable for exegesis."

Granted, serious scholarly work must consult the Hebrew and Greek texts (but, which ones?).  However, it would be interesting to consider one or more specific "problematic" texts in alleging the obsolesce of the KJV and the inferiority of the manuscripts upon which it is based.
Quick Reply
Cancel
10 years ago  ::  Jan 29, 2008 - 8:47PM #4
CalKnox
Posts: 330
I've recently gone from use of the NKJV in the reading of Scripture in public worship to exclusive use of the KJV.

That does not mean I ignore the original language texts in sermon preparation.

The KJV is entirely adequate for reading and exposition, though an occasional archaic word or grammar may require explanation.

The false teaching of the inspiration of the KJV translators (“KJV Onlyism”) is a heresy.  The KJV is not a flawless translation; only less so than many modern translations.

Occasionally, I must address in the sermon the alleged discrepancies in so called “earliest and most reliable manuscripts.”
Quick Reply
Cancel
10 years ago  ::  Jan 30, 2008 - 9:13AM #5
smc93
Posts: 200
Archaism... the new religion
Quick Reply
Cancel
10 years ago  ::  Jan 30, 2008 - 11:31AM #6
CalKnox
Posts: 330
[QUOTE=smc93;251594]Archaism... the new religion[/QUOTE]

Noted:  The lack of a specific 'problematic' text demonstrating the alleged "osolesce of the KJV and the inferiority of the manuscripts upon which it is based."

Waiting.....
Quick Reply
Cancel
10 years ago  ::  Jan 30, 2008 - 12:17PM #7
Verdugo
Posts: 5,258
Cal--

I'm unsure what you're hoping to achieve here...

I'm pretty sure you're aware of the differences between the texts on which the KJV vs. modern translations are based.  I would agree with you that it is debatable which is more reliable.  My personal opinion is with Gorman, but I think his vastly overstates his case in the quote provided.  But I don't see how listing the differences in the two texts is going to resolve the issue???

Perhaps you could specify what it is you have in mind, perhaps a text of YOUR choosing, since you seem to have something in mind here that I'm not following...?
Quick Reply
Cancel
10 years ago  ::  Jan 30, 2008 - 3:51PM #8
CalKnox
Posts: 330
The burden of specific demonstration rests with those who make unsupported general statements.  If the KJV is an obsolete translation based upon an unreliable text, there must be many specific examples of mistranslation or insufficient textual support.  Should be easy to point to one or two phrases or verses.

It is easy to sound scholarly and authoritative when one ignores specifics.  A lot of that goes on in the church and elsewhere.
Quick Reply
Cancel
10 years ago  ::  Jan 30, 2008 - 6:58PM #9
Verdugo
Posts: 5,258
What exactly is it you are disputing, though?  Are you disputing that there are words, phrases, and stories in the Textus receptus used for the KJV that are not found in other mss that were found in the 20th c?  I'm pretty sure you're not disputing that, so what would be the point of me or anyone else doing the work of looking up all the distinctions and listing them here? The differences themselves won't prove anything-- other than that you have version A and version B.   That won't prove what I think is the REAL issue that you're disputing-- which is whether the Textus receptus is more or less reliable than the mss. discovered in the 20th c.  So why don't we take the fact that there are differences as a "given" and move on to discussing how one goes about asserting which of the two versions is more reliable?
Quick Reply
Cancel
10 years ago  ::  Jan 30, 2008 - 10:54PM #10
Doohickie
Posts: 258
He's just trying to show us how smart he is.
Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 1 of 5  •  1 2 3 4 5 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook