Featured Is the King James Version the best English Bible?

[bbyrd009]

You do realize Bart Ehrman is an agnostic right? I find it hilarious that people give a nonbeliever any credence whatsoever when it comes to the Word of God. That is equivalent to me being an expert on the Quran and Islam. Bart Erhman is no expert concerning Christianity no matter how many letters come behind his signature.

You stated the KJV does not factor in the manuscripts discovered after it was written. Can you show me 1 (one) example, just one, of an additional piece of information contained in newer transactions that is not already included in the KJV? The truth of the matter is, the newer versions contain far less information than the KJV. Whole verses are removed from newer versions without any new additions. And as I have already pointed out, these newer translations contain false information and confusion. Many new translations have Elhahan killing Goliath instead of David (2Sam.21:19). Please explain how this is better. I would like to see one example of a newer translation being better than the KJV. You have not posted any evidence to support your claim. All you have offered is opinion.

Finally, while the KJV is a word for word translation, it is also a thought for thought translation. The KJV does not follow the word for word example you posted above. The translators, who were experts in Hebrew and Greek, arranged the words so as to be understood when read in English.

As a side note, have you ever wondered why these newer manuscripts had to be discovered? The reason is they were not being used and had been forgotten. Manuscripts that were in constant use wore out much sooner because they were made out of papyrus and skins. They needed to be replaced much more often than scripts not in use. Those manuscripts were not in use because they were inferior.

Bart makes more sense than any Christian I know. As far as the KJV goes - I can live without it.

guess ill hafta look up BEhrman, ive only heard of him. And ppl who conflate Bible with Word seem to kinda be stuck on the kjv, huh? I think they prefer the more confusing language tbh

at Ehrman i unfort got bogged down into one where he perceives some existential contradiction in Jesus claiming Abiathar rather than Abimilech in Mark 2, so i guess maybe not the best intro—the meaning of Abiathar likely splains that. He claims to be atheist? Which is not necessarily a deal breaker for me, but telling. Id be interested to hear his definition of agnostic tho, since he also apparently claims that?

If you have a link in mind that shows him in his best light id appreciate it

oh ya, and helloandwelcometotheforum

 

[AgnosticBoy]

We have to remember that the Bible is not an ordinary book. Each and every word was inspired by God and God is in the details. If God tediously listed peoples genealogy and places they went then why would He be sloppy and combine two verses into one and attribute both to one man?

Because God was so detailed throughout the entire Bible, I cannot see Him getting lazy and combining two verses into one and attributing both to Isaiah. Again, nowhere in the Bible is this method used.

I actually see it differently. The Bible is an ordinary book in the sense that it was written by man and so it is prone to all of the errors that we tend to find in any other books. That still leaves room for God to be involved when he inspires people to write, and that the main part of His law and Gospel are documented by us at the least, but that does not mean that God wrote or proofread anything.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

If you have a link in mind that shows him in his best light id appreciate it

Ooh,... I can!

Check out this exchange between Ehrman and a passionate Atheist that doubted the existence of Jesus...

 

[Scooter]

I actually see it differently. The Bible is an ordinary book in the sense that it was written by man and so it is prone to all of the errors that we tend to find in any other books. That still leaves room for God to be involved when he inspires people to write, and that the main part of His law and Gospel are documented by us at the least, but that does not mean that God wrote or proofread anything.

This is exactly what I would expect from a nonbeliever. The things of God are foolish to unsaved people (1Cor.2:14). So let's finish up the issue of Mark 1:1-3 before we move on to another problem with newer versions. Let's say for the sake of argument that Mark did group two verses together and attribute both to Isaiah. The NIV acknowledges in the footnotes that the one verse is from Malachi and not Isaiah. So how is revealing this discrepancy beneficial to the casual reader? What makes the NIV better than the KJV in these three verses?

 

[bbyrd009]

If you have a link in mind that shows him in his best light id appreciate it

Ooh,... I can!

Check out this exchange between Ehrman and a passionate Atheist that doubted the existence of Jesus...

ok tks, ill try and get my mind around an atheist who believes in a literal Jesus lol.

 

[bbyrd009]

We have to remember that the Bible is not an ordinary book. Each and every word was inspired by God and God is in the details. If God tediously listed peoples genealogy and places they went then why would He be sloppy and combine two verses into one and attribute both to one man?

Because God was so detailed throughout the entire Bible, I cannot see Him getting lazy and combining two verses into one and attributing both to Isaiah. Again, nowhere in the Bible is this method used.

I actually see it differently. The Bible is an ordinary book in the sense that it was written by man and so it is prone to all of the errors that we tend to find in any other books. That still leaves room for God to be involved when he inspires people to write, and that the main part of His law and Gospel are documented by us at the least, but that does not mean that God wrote or proofread anything.

its funny the lengths that we humans will go to to validate our beliefs, innit? I used to get quite upset when my beliefs were challenged, and tbh im not even sure how the Bible’s challenge of my core beliefs even occurred, as i certainly was not looking for that. Hopefully we might someday be able to have some discussion on what manna and the pearl rep in the Bible, but for today ill say that i thank God that i no longer have beliefs in the traditional sense, meaning “beliefs about what might happen tomorrow, or did happen in the past.”

After all, what separates me from other humans, more than beliefs? What purpose does having a belief about the current subject under discussion resolve?

 

[AgnosticBoy]

This is exactly what I would expect from a nonbeliever. The things of God are foolish to unsaved people (1Cor.2:14). So let's finish up the issue of Mark 1:1-3 before we move on to another problem with newer versions. Let's say for the sake of argument that Mark did group two verses together and attribute both to Isaiah. The NIV acknowledges in the footnotes that the one verse is from Malachi and not Isaiah. So how is revealing this discrepancy beneficial to the casual reader? What makes the NIV better than the KJV in these three verses?

I don't think it would help the causal reader understand the passage. But it is good from the standpoint of staying true to what Mark actually said.

I would imagine that if the newer translations left out Isaiah, then that might get looked at as the bible translators trying to hide a discrepancy. I favor transparency.

 

[Scooter]

e

I don't think it would help the causal reader understand the passage

So the NIV/ newer versions are not actually better in helping the reader understand the verses. And the KJV is agreeably more accurate.

Ok, go ahead and choose another issue I have with the newer versions and we’ll hash that out as well.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

Ok, go ahead and choose another issue I have with the newer versions and we’ll hash that out as well.

Well, here's my thing about that. I'm thinking more about the approach and if going through each objection is effective.

I think of it just like how Christians try to defend the error-free Bible by trying to respond to every contradiction. From my experience that doesn't go well, not because I accept the contradictions, but rather it's because someone can just have some unending number of objections. If we could at least agree that in principle having more evidence (more manuscripts discovered since KJV) can be an advantage to getting to the correct translation, then that would be the main point.

 

[Scooter]

If the evidence was better, I would agree with you. However, the manuscripts uncovered are inferior to the manuscripts used to translate the KJV. These newly discovered manuscripts contain errors and flat out lies. Again, older does not mean better. Older in this case, IMO, means they were discarded because they were subpar. In fact one of these new manuscripts known as Codex Sinaiticus was discovered in a trash can to be burned by the monks. Here is an excerpt from https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Sinaiticus

Tischendorf wrote a narrative about the monastery and the manuscript that spanned from 1844 to 1859. He wrote that in 1844, during his first visit to the Saint Catherine's Monastery, he saw some leaves of parchment in a waste-basket. They were "rubbish which was to be destroyed by burning it in the ovens of the monastery"

So I stand by my assertion that the KJV is a superior English translation based on superior manuscripts.