I want to make this very clear:
Don’t shoot the sheep while looking for wolves
What I am doing is not putting down the KJV. What I am saying is the KJV is not the only reliable translation of the Bible and all other translation are false .
As you can see I have used the KJV Scofield from my early days
For the KJV Only advocate, there is simply no way out of this problem.
While I personal use and read the KJV, it is my no means that it’s the KJV only and nothing else. The KJV Onlyism people have fallen to a tradition that is not good. You are not going to be lost and going to hell if you use other translation, and you are not going to wrong in using the KJV either.
Then translating, in addition to making use of the Scrivener edition of the “TR”, it is our normal practice to verify a reading by examining other editions of the Greek “TR” (for example, the Greek New Testaments of Erasmus, Stephens, Beza, Elzevir).
When examining the textual support for this verse, we found some interesting results – The 3rd word “ἐσόμενος” (future participle form of the verb ειμι “to be”) did not appear in the TR editions of Erasmus, Stephens, or Elzevir. Further research into the matter indicates that this word appears only in Beza’s edition (1598, 5th Ed., which probably is the Greek New Testament used by KJV translators). Of course, it also appears in Scrivener’s reconstructed Greek New Testament containing the Greek text underlying the KJV.
But as another commenter suggested, it doesn’t change doctrine and is therefore not of primary importance. But it is an interesting, and accurate, observation. That book is excellent as well.
The fact is that the KJV, while an alright translation if you prefer it and its poetic style – in addition to being antiquated in its literary constructions – has a significant number of translation issues in it. It uses newer Greek texts (the Textus Receptus) that have a multitude of additions, and errors in them from years of copying.
While none of these errors are *doctrinally* significant, the NASB, ESV, HCSB and a few others are quite a bit better and are based off of older, more reliable Greek texts.
Some don’t agree with your belief that “older” texts are “better” texts. I suggest you read Gordon H. Clark’s “Logical Criticisms of Textual Criticism” and Edward F. Hills’s “The King James Version Defended.
I don’t know if he’s a KJV-Onlyist or if he perhaps just has strong opinions about it.
However, I have met KJV Onlyists who have told me that the Bible was *reinspired* to the KJV translators, and if there are any discrepancies between the KJV and any Greek copies that we have, that the Greek copies should be corrected to match the KJV.
Additionally, I was informed by this KJV Onlyist, when I asked “What about people in China who don’t speak English – what translation should they use?” – that it is our duty as “God’s chosen nation – America – an English-speaking nation” to teach the Chinese Elizabethan English so they could understand the *real* Bible.
I am not a “KJV-Onlyist.” I simply believe that the KJV, for English-speaking Protestants, ought to be the basic Bible for home, church, and school. quote
I don’t think any of us here would argue that the KJV is a corrupted or “bad” translation. I just feel that recognizing that translators, copyists and scribes do make minor errors frequently is realistic. The fact that major errors were not made (any that affect doctrine) is miraculous and wonderful.
There are lot of these simple mistranslations though. I don’t think they’re really a “black eye” in the KJV, they’re just something we should all come to terms with.
For example, Revelation 17:8
KJV says “… and is not, and yet is.” while
NASB, for example says “and is not and will come”
ESV says “and is not and is to come”
These are tiny differences, but recognizing that a scribe made an error while copying the Greek:
“ouk estin kai parestai” in the earlier manuscripts, and instead wrote:
“ouk esti kaiper esti”
– it’s not outside the realm of imagination that this could happen. *shrugs*
I feel like that’s a really strict way to view it. In translation alone you lose some meaning, so do you translate it so you have all the words in the same order or do you transliterate it so that it makes sense in the language you’re reading it in?
fair enough. However, I think I was more focused on the *Greek* copies. In translation, there are a lot of choices that many of us don’t even consider. For example, idioms in one language make NO sense in another. Do you give a literal translation and leave the readers entirely confused, or do you find a comparable idiom in the host language, or do you do away with the idiom altogether?
We’re walking a line of trusting God with His promise of His word being kept. We have a ditch on one side where we can’t fall into accepting a terrible translation that has nothing to do with the Greek and we get a false gospel. The other side has a ditch that we can’t fall into micro examining every single word and condemning people that use different words to convey the same message.
Don’t shoot the sheep while looking for wolves