KJV qulity

[Montie_Claunch]

On another thread a gentleman frowned apon the Strongs Exhuastive concordance which lead me to think that something was wrong with the Manuscripts wich the KJV draws upon or Strongs quality of work. Does anyone know which one is faulty (overlooking the missing books)? Thanks and God bless.

 

[DaveBj]

It’s a matter of historical record that there were better manuscripts on the European continent than those that the KJV team were using.

As far as Strong’s work is concerned, considering what he had to work with in the 19th century, I think he did an amazing job. Of course now we have CD-ROMS with multiple translations, all of which are fully searchable, and with multi-line interlinear versions showing the original language, the pronunciation, a code for parsing each word in the original, a word-by-word translation, etc.

DaveBj

 

[Thal59]

The earlier Greek texts are the Koine, Attica, Alexandrian, Byzantine, etc.

Later texts are ones like Stephen’s and Scrivner. Now if the later Greek translations were formulated by someone who may have a pro-Protestant bias, there is a good chance that the English translation you derive from that Greek text may also be biased.

Thal59

 

[Godfrey]

whenever I go to quote scripture from memory, it comes out in the language of the Authorized Version, commonly known as the King James Version of the Bible.

It was what I first learned

It is not wholly without merit, but as stated above, it had a limited amount of original manuscripts to be translated from and was not representative of the superior knowledge of the original languages and archaeological discoveries, cultural insight, etc that is available now.

Other modern English language translation are more preferable for many reasons, but I still read it at times.

(putting any issues related to it not including the Deuterocanonical books aside) it was not consistent in translating the same words used in the same sense, has some errors in translation, has English language that is antiquainted and may not be as clearly understood by some, etc

I would not recommend it as a primary choice of Bible version for most people - and even though I do use it, I prefer the NRSV because of its scholarliness, clear language, use in divinity schools/seminaries, and its wide acceptance amongst all major churches, denominations and sects worldwide.

Peace