Featured Is the King James Version the best English Bible?

[AgnosticBoy]

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

I don't believe there are any perfect translations, and part of the reason for that is that there is no perfect manuscript in existence. So when you've stated that the Greek manuscripts found after the KJV contained errors, that point also applies to the manuscripts that the KJV translators used.

For instance, the KJV has some interpolations, like in 1 John 5:7, this extra part was added by the KJV translators:
7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

And let's look at the NASB for the same passage:

7 For there are three that testify:

That's a huge difference. So which version is correct? Or did the NT writers say what the KJV says?

Answer: What's known as the Comma Johanneum (the part in green highlight) is not part of any early Greek manuscript.

"These extra words are generally absent from the Greek manuscripts. In fact, they only appear in the text of four late medieval manuscripts. They seem to have originated as a marginal note added to certain Latin manuscripts during the middle ages, which was eventually incorporated into the text of most of the later Vulgate manuscripts." ^1

"The passage is absent from every known Greek manuscript except eight, and these contain the passage in what appears to be a translation from a late recension of the Latin Vulgate. Four of the eight manuscripts contain the passage as a variant reading written in the margin as a later addition to the manuscript." (Ibid.)

Source: https://www.theopedia.com/johannine-comma

Now this by itself doesn't mean that the KJV is a terrible translation, but it does show that even the KJV has at least some areas where they don't accurately tell us what the NT writers said. And again, part of the problem is that they were working with what they got, and what they had also contained errors.

 

[Scooter]

So when you've stated that the Greek manuscripts found after the KJV contained errors, that point also applies to the manuscripts that the KJV translators used.

For instance, the KJV has some interpolations, like in 1 John 5:7, this extra part was added by the KJV translators:
7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

I'm sorry, but this is incorrect. The Johannine Comma was not added by the KJV translators. It was included in earlier English translations, Here are a few:
Wycliffe Bible 1382: For thre ben, that yyuen witnessing in heuene, the Fadir, the Sone, and the Hooli Goost; and these thre ben oon
Tyndale Bible 1522: (For ther are thre which beare recorde in heuen the father the worde and the wholy goost. And these thre are one)
Geneva Bible 1560: For there are three, which beare recorde in heauen, the Father, the Worde, and the holy Ghost: and these three are one.
Bishop Bible 1568: For there are three which beare recorde in heauen, the father, the worde, and the holy ghost, and these three are one.

Notice also this tidbit of information that supports the Johannine Comma from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannine_Comma

In A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, Bruce Metzger (1975, pp. 716–718) traces in detail the history of the passage, asserting its first mention in the 4th-century treatise Liber Apologeticus, and that it appears in Old Latin and Vulgate manuscripts beginning in the 6th century.

Again, I stand on the KJV because I believe it's based on superior manuscripts.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

I'm sorry, but this is incorrect. The Johannine Comma was not added by the KJV translators. It was included in earlier English translations

Technically you are right that the KJV weren't the first to include the extra part of 1 John 5:7. But the point I'm getting at is the extra part is not found in early Greek manuscripts, which also means that it was very likely not what the 1st century Apostles stated.

Notice also this tidbit of information that supports the Johannine Comma from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannine_Comma

In A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, Bruce Metzger (1975, pp. 716–718) traces in detail the history of the passage, asserting its first mention in the 4th-century treatise Liber Apologeticus, and that it appears in Old Latin and Vulgate manuscripts beginning in the 6th century.

Your source only says that it was mentioned in a "treatise" by a Christian which is not the same as the Greek manuscripts that document what the Apostles said or wrote themselves. The Wiki article also says this:

The comma is mainly only attested in the Latin manuscripts of the New Testament, being absent from the vast majority of Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, the earliest Greek manuscript being 14th century.

 

[Scooter]

Let’s say for the sake of argument the Johannine Comma was not in the original. I’m not conceding that it wasn’t but let’s say it wasn’t. With it added, does it contradict any other scripture? No. Is the statement in error? No. Does it change any doctrine? No. So even if it was added later, it is not in error nor does it change doctrine.

New translations are in error, contradicts itself and does change doctrine. Therefore, I fail to see how newer versions are better seeing they are based on older, yet inferior, manuscripts. Again, these older manuscripts were not in use and had been discarded and forgotten about.

Also let me say how much I appreciate the exchanges with you on this matter. It is refreshing to exchange ideas even though we disagree. Thank you!

 

[AgnosticBoy]

Also let me say how much I appreciate the exchanges with you on this matter. It is refreshing to exchange ideas even though we disagree. Thank you!

Thanks. I can say the same about you. I'm obviously not a Christian but I do like having a good understanding of it. The same way I think people should have a good understanding of political issues because they have so much influence on our lives.

On the KJV, I don't say that it's a bad translation as if it's completely unreliable. Rather, my view is that having more evidence to go on is an advantage, and I think the newer translations benefit from that. If anything, i think it is good to use multiple translations. I started out with the Niv, but then somehow got stuck on the KJV as if it was the original straight from the Apostles. But now, as a non-believer, I dive into the more literal word-for-word translations (or as close to that).