Where did King James only originate?

[John146]

I look at the underlying Greek text.

And when looking at the underlying Greek text, how do you determine which translated English word is correct?

 

[ResidentAlien]

Setting aside KJB and going back to the NASB, why "can" is a bad translation? and why "will" is a good one? Thanks

Estai isn't easy to translate. It means "I am." The future tense of estai is "I will be" or "I shall be." It wouldn't make much sense if you said the future tense of "I am" is "I can be."

See https://biblehub.com/greek/1510.htm

 

[fredoheaven]

Estai isn't easy to translate. It means "I am." The future tense of estai is "I will be" or "I shall be." It wouldn't make much sense if you said the future tense of "I am" is "I can be."

See https://biblehub.com/greek/1510.htm

So which one is correct, you said 'will be" is a better translation yet now going to a greek 'I can be" ? Please help since I am still of little understanding of this. Thanks

 

[Nehemiah6]

...but it's delusional to say the KJV 1611 is the only version that reflects the autographs with 100% accuracy.

That is another false and misleading statement from our resident expert on tearing down the KJB. "ResidentAlien" is an accurate description of one who is alienated from the true Bible. And on the contrary, it is delusional to give credence to any modern version since 1881. If the root is corrupt then then fruit must also be corrupt.

Doth a fountain send forth at the same place sweet water and bitter? Can the fig tree, my brethren, bear olive berries? either a vine, figs? so can no fountain both yield salt water and fresh. (James 3:11,12)

Woe unto them that call good evil, and evil good.
https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/James-3-13/

 

[ResidentAlien]

So which one is correct, you said 'will be" is a better translation yet now going to a greek 'I can be" ? Please help since I am still of little understanding of this. Thanks

I've told you I believe "how will these thing be" is correct, in my opinion; and I showed you from the Greek why I believe this. I'm not sure what more you want me to say. If you read my previous post again that's the best explanation I can give.

I'm not a Greek scholar so I can't say absolutely I'm right. Interpreting Greek is as much an art as a science in many cases. Often there won't be a word-for-word exact correspondence between Greek and English.

 

[fredoheaven]

I've told you I believe "how will these thing be" is correct, in my opinion; and I showed you from the Greek why I believe this. I'm not sure what more you want me to say. If you read my previous post again that's the best explanation I can give.

I'm not a Greek scholar so I can't say absolutely I'm right. Interpreting Greek is as much an art as a science in many cases. Often there won't be a word-for-word exact correspondence between Greek and English.

I am confused here. I haven't exactly told you to go over the Greek text, we are in an English translation. I'm taking the case of NASB, we have set aside KJB, You only said in your opinion as you stated and asking the reason why "will be" is a better translation and not "can be", I know a little English grammatically yet needed a little support from yours? Thanks

 

[ResidentAlien]

The argument can be made that either "can" or "shall" are acceptable translations in English. For the average reader reading the NASB or the KJV they would probably come away with the same conclusion: Mary is shocked to hear this because she's a virgin; and she doesn't understand how this can be or how it will happen.

I just prefer "will" or "shall."

 

[Nehemiah6]

You only said in your opinion as you stated and asking the reason why "will be" is a better translation and not "can be"

"Can be" implies that there was an impossibility to overcome. "Will be" implies that the timing may have been off. Two entirely different meanings.

Here is a good example: "Can a human being fly like a bird?" No, because it is impossible.
On the other hand "Will a human being fly like a bird?" Yes, only if the conditions are right.

 

[justbyfaith]

That's just the way I look at it.

All the Greek manuscripts that I'm aware of use the word estai: the TR, Westcott & Hort, the Majority Text—all of 'em. If Westcott & Hort, or someone else, had intentionally inserted a new word to replace estai, that would be corruption of the Greek text.

You're looking at from the viewpoint that the KJV 1611 English text is a perfect translation and any variation from that is a corruption. I don't see it that way. I look at the underlying Greek text.

Any variation from the Textus Receptus, from which the kjv is derived, is a corruption.

 

[ResidentAlien]

Any variation from the Textus Receptus, from which the kjv is derived, is a corruption.

I know. You've made that abundantly clear!

 

[Dino246]

Any variation from the Textus Receptus, from which the kjv is derived, is a corruption.

Do you know the history of the "Textus Receptus? Can you demonstrate that you know said history by briefly summarizing it?

 

[ResidentAlien]

Any variation from the Textus Receptus, from which the kjv is derived, is a corruption.

Which edition of the TR is the only one with no corruptions? Is Stephanus' edition okay? He added verse numbers, so every time someone reads a Bible with verse numbers are they reading a corrupted Bible?

I'm also still wondering if the Apocrypha are God's inspired words in your opinion; and if we read a Bible without the Apocrypha do we have a corrupted Bible.

 

[Lanolin]

I am now reading the International Childrens Bible version (Woolly sheep version). I notice instead of Adam 'knowing' Eve, it says Adam had 'sexual relations' with Eve.

I guess they want to make it explicit for children...lol

 

[Nehemiah6]

Which edition of the TR is the only one with no corruptions?

All editions of the TR represent the true Greek text of the Bible as found in the bulk of manuscripts, translations, lectionaries, and the writings of the Early Church Fathers.

After Erasmus produced the first printed Greek text of the New Testament in 1516, other textual scholars worked on it for about 100 years. During that time there were only minor revisions to the text. Eventually the Greek text of Stephanus from 1550 became what is now known as the Textus Receptus. But the Elzevier brothers continued to work on it into the 17th century (again with only minor variations).

At the same time there were minor variations from the text of Stephanus which were incorporated into the KJB (since those translators had access to all the editions of the TR since Erasmus). So F.H.A. Scrivener -- the leading textual scholar of the 19th century -- produced the actual KJB Greek text in 1894 (with added punctuations). But it is almost identical if not 100% identical to that of Stephanus. Here is an example from John 1:1:

Scrivener's Textus Receptus 1894
Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν Θεόν, καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος.

Stephanus Textus Receptus 1550
Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος

As you can see, Scrivener simply added punctuations in this verse. So for all practical purposes, the TR has remained the same.

 

[Dino246]

All editions of the TR represent the true Greek text of the Bible as found in the bulk of manuscripts, translations, lectionaries, and the writings of the Early Church Fathers.

After Erasmus produced the first printed Greek text of the New Testament in 1516, other textual scholars worked on it for about 100 years. During that time there were only minor revisions to the text. Eventually the Greek text of Stephanus from 1550 became what is now known as the Textus Receptus. But the Elzevier brothers continued to work on it into the 17th century (again with only minor variations).

At the same time there were minor variations from the text of Stephanus which were incorporated into the KJB (since those translators had access to all the editions of the TR since Erasmus). So F.H.A. Scrivener -- the leading textual scholar of the 19th century -- produced the actual KJB Greek text in 1894 (with added punctuations). But it is almost identical if not 100% identical to that of Stephanus. Here is an example from John 1:1:

Scrivener's Textus Receptus 1894
Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν Θεόν, καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος.

Stephanus Textus Receptus 1550
Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος

As you can see, Scrivener simply added punctuations in this verse. So for all practical purposes, the TR has remained the same.

Scrivener’s work is a translation from the English KJV into Greek. There is no Greek manuscript that reads exactly the same way. The TR is an eclectic text no less than the modern Nestle-Alland.

 

[Nehemiah6]

Scrivener’s work is a translation from the English KJV into Greek. There is no Greek manuscript that reads exactly the same way. The TR is an eclectic text no less than the modern Nestle-Alland.

That is incorrect in all points.

So here is the truth about the matter:
"F. H. A. Scrivener (1813-1891) attempted to reproduce as exactly as possible the Greek text which underlies the Authorised Version of 1611. However, the AV was not translated from any one printed edition of the Greek text. The AV translators relied heavily upon the work of William Tyndale and other editions of the English Bible. Thus there were places in which it is unclear what the Greek basis of the New Testament was. Scrivener in his reconstructed and edited text used as his starting point the Beza edition of 1598, identifying the places where the English text had different readings from the Greek. He examined eighteen editions of the Textus Receptus to find the correct Greek rendering, and made the changes to his Greek text. When he finished he had produced an edition of the Greek New Testament which more closely underlies the text of the AV than any one edition of the Textus Receptus."
http://www.textusreceptusbibles.com/Scrivener

Beza was one of the scholars who also worked on the Greek text. So Scrivener compared Beza's text to that of Stephanus. And the TR is definitely NOT an eclectic text. So let's compare the Lord's Prayer (Mt 6:9-13) and see if there are any significant differences:

SCRIVENER
6:9ουτως ουν προσευχεσθε υμεις πατερ ημων ο εν τοις ουρανοις αγιασθητω το ονομα σου 6:10ελθετω η βασιλεια σου γενηθητω το θελημα σου ως εν ουρανω και επι της γης 6:11τον αρτον ημων τον επιουσιον δος ημιν σημερον 6:12και αφες ημιν τα οφειληματα ημων ως και ημεις αφιεμεν τοις οφειλεταις ημων 6:13και μη εισενεγκης ημας εις πειρασμον αλλα ρυσαι ημας απο του πονηρου οτι σου εστιν η βασιλεια και η δυναμις και η δοξα εις τους αιωνας αμην

STEPHANUS
6:9ουτως ουν προσευχεσθε υμεις πατερ ημων ο εν τοις ουρανοις αγιασθητω το ονομα σου 6:10ελθετω η βασιλεια σου γενηθητω το θελημα σου ως εν ουρανω και επι της γης 6:11τον αρτον ημων τον επιουσιον δος ημιν σημερον 6:12και αφες ημιν τα οφειληματα ημων ως και ημεις αφιεμεν τοις οφειλεταις ημων 6:13και μη εισενεγκης ημας εις πειρασμον αλλα ρυσαι ημας απο του πονηρου οτι σου εστιν η βασιλεια και η δυναμις και η δοξα εις τους αιωνας αμην

AS ONE CAN SEE THEY ARE IDENTICAL.

 

[fredoheaven]

The argument can be made that either "can" or "shall" are acceptable translations in English. For the average reader reading the NASB or the KJV they would probably come away with the same conclusion: Mary is shocked to hear this because she's a virgin; and she doesn't understand how this can be or how it will happen.

I just prefer "will" or "shall."

No explanation, just a preference. This is common to critical editors of the bible using only guesses without analysis but I do understand you and we can move on.

 

[fredoheaven]

"Can be" implies that there was an impossibility to overcome. "Will be" implies that the timing may have been off. Two entirely different meanings.

Here is a good example: "Can a human being fly like a bird?" No, because it is impossible.
On the other hand "Will a human being fly like a bird?" Yes, only if the conditions are right.

So that there were changes made in the NASB and this will fall to corruption of its text. Thanks

 

[ResidentAlien]

No explanation, just a preference. This is common to critical editors of the bible using only guesses without analysis but I do understand you and we can move on.

Yes, we can move on but not before I make it clear: My position isn't based on guesses. I explained in great detail. But it seems to me you really want me to say the NASB corrupted the text. I suspected as much.

 

[fredoheaven]

Yes, we can move on but not before I make it clear: My position isn't based on guesses. I explained in great detail. But it seems to me you really want me to say the NASB corrupted the text. I suspected as much.

Yes, and I made a very exemplar of your argument and prejudices against KJB as it won't work that way in the KJB but it worked well with the modern bibles like NASB which keep changing its text causing confusion. Thank you anyway for a little support.