Here's an interesting comment by Daniel Wallace, who has written books this topic and is a Greek scholar:
“Multiple translations don’t make a text more or less reliable. But it’s interesting that there’s kind of an underlying assumption when people make that statement and it feels something like this: well, the Bible has been translated and once it got translated, people have revised the translation without going back to look at those early manuscripts. And so, I thought that when I was in junior high school but I got past that relatively early. The reality is that the King James... Bible, when it was translated in 1611, it was essentially based on the New Testament was essentially based on seven Greek New Testament manuscripts, the earliest of which went back to the 11th century. We still have those manuscripts and we have almost 6,000 more manuscripts. So, we have almost a thousand times as many manuscripts as the King James New Testament was based on and our earliest don’t go back to the 11th century but so far as what’s been published, they go back to the second century. So they go back almost a thousand years earlier. So as time goes on, we’re not actually getting farther and farther away from the original text, we’re getting closer and closer.”
~ Daniel Wallace
The essence of the remarks is this: the King James Version is a translation based on the Textus Receptus New Testament, compiled by Erasmus and modified by others (Beza, Stephanus). It was based on relatively recent manuscript, none older than the 11th century. Modern translations are largely based on the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament, which considers all of these previous manuscripts plus almost 1000 times as many more. And, these manuscripts are older.
The reasoning that the modern translations are more accurate is that the other source manuscripts are closer to the originals, which are called "autographs", and therefore don't contain copying errors that the more recent manuscripts have. These copying errors result from things such as marginal notes of the manuscript owners, or unintentional scribal errors.
As you can see I don't buy into the KJV Only argument. I learned about the Bible initially with a KJV, and I don't disrespect the translators. However, I favor the ESV or NASB or NIV above it.
And, if you research the claims that KJV Only people make, they are based on misinformation. Let me give you an example.
Biblica translated the NIV. Biblica licensed the right to publish it in the USA to Zondervan. Zondervan is owned by Harper Collins who also owns a company that publishes the Satanic Bible and another company that publishes the Joys of Gay Sex.
Often KJV Only people use this vague connection to claim that the NIV is Satanic. One can easily see that the translator is Biblica, and not Zondervan, and while Zondervan owns the right to publish it in the USA, there is no direct connection like KJV Only people claim.
Another common claim is that a NIV translator was a lesbian. She actually was not a translator; she was a stylist who polished the expression of the language, and her work was reviewed by the committee. Additionally, they ignore the fact that Erasmus, the Textus Receptus author, was a Roman Catholic priest who wrote letters to a younger man that strongly indicate that he was attempting to seduce him, and was miffed because the younger man did not return his affection.
It is a very effective debate tool to take the standards (weights and measures) of the opposing side and apply the same standards to them. Often this reveals the weakness of their arguments and propaganda.
These are just two examples of the double standards.
I will acknowledge that the KJV sounds more majestic, especially when read by a Brit like my friend prodigal in the Bible Study room
“Multiple translations don’t make a text more or less reliable. But it’s interesting that there’s kind of an underlying assumption when people make that statement and it feels something like this: well, the Bible has been translated and once it got translated, people have revised the translation without going back to look at those early manuscripts. And so, I thought that when I was in junior high school but I got past that relatively early. The reality is that the King James... Bible, when it was translated in 1611, it was essentially based on the New Testament was essentially based on seven Greek New Testament manuscripts, the earliest of which went back to the 11th century. We still have those manuscripts and we have almost 6,000 more manuscripts. So, we have almost a thousand times as many manuscripts as the King James New Testament was based on and our earliest don’t go back to the 11th century but so far as what’s been published, they go back to the second century. So they go back almost a thousand years earlier. So as time goes on, we’re not actually getting farther and farther away from the original text, we’re getting closer and closer.”
~ Daniel Wallace
The essence of the remarks is this: the King James Version is a translation based on the Textus Receptus New Testament, compiled by Erasmus and modified by others (Beza, Stephanus). It was based on relatively recent manuscript, none older than the 11th century. Modern translations are largely based on the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament, which considers all of these previous manuscripts plus almost 1000 times as many more. And, these manuscripts are older.
The reasoning that the modern translations are more accurate is that the other source manuscripts are closer to the originals, which are called "autographs", and therefore don't contain copying errors that the more recent manuscripts have. These copying errors result from things such as marginal notes of the manuscript owners, or unintentional scribal errors.
As you can see I don't buy into the KJV Only argument. I learned about the Bible initially with a KJV, and I don't disrespect the translators. However, I favor the ESV or NASB or NIV above it.
And, if you research the claims that KJV Only people make, they are based on misinformation. Let me give you an example.
Biblica translated the NIV. Biblica licensed the right to publish it in the USA to Zondervan. Zondervan is owned by Harper Collins who also owns a company that publishes the Satanic Bible and another company that publishes the Joys of Gay Sex.
Often KJV Only people use this vague connection to claim that the NIV is Satanic. One can easily see that the translator is Biblica, and not Zondervan, and while Zondervan owns the right to publish it in the USA, there is no direct connection like KJV Only people claim.
Another common claim is that a NIV translator was a lesbian. She actually was not a translator; she was a stylist who polished the expression of the language, and her work was reviewed by the committee. Additionally, they ignore the fact that Erasmus, the Textus Receptus author, was a Roman Catholic priest who wrote letters to a younger man that strongly indicate that he was attempting to seduce him, and was miffed because the younger man did not return his affection.
It is a very effective debate tool to take the standards (weights and measures) of the opposing side and apply the same standards to them. Often this reveals the weakness of their arguments and propaganda.
These are just two examples of the double standards.
I will acknowledge that the KJV sounds more majestic, especially when read by a Brit like my friend prodigal in the Bible Study room
-
1
- Show all
