Do you believe there’s any value to studying the Bible in its original languages/manuscripts even with the KJV to read? I’ve seen some who read the KJV insist on reading the KJV only for scripture, believing the translation work itself to be divinely inspired/inerrant. I want to hear more opinions on this.
>>18118768Yeah it's fun to read the TR.It generally elucidates why the KJV is the way it is, since the KJV is such a good translation. No I will not choose three(3) manuscripts over the TR/majority text.
>>18118768Koine Greek is mandatory for such an endeavour Latin is necessary too
>>18118768It's the best English language translation. Reading the original Hebrew and Greek is not necessary but could be edifying if you are a philology autist. No text of the bible is inerrant other than the original autographs which have not existed for a long time.
>>18118768I believe that James I was based and specifically didn't translate arsenokoitēs as men who lie with men because he was divinely inspired to make a pro-Gay marriage version of the Bible as Man love is based and the best way to fight witches.
>>18118777>holy tripschecked
>>18118768>Do you believe there’s any value to studying the Bible in its original languages/manuscripts even with the KJV to read?There's value to studying lots of things.>I’ve seen some who read the KJV insist on reading the KJV only for scriptureThis is generally a good approach because it's an accurate translation if you're an English speaker.>believing the translation work itself to be divinely inspired/inerrant.I don't think a translation has to be divinely inspired or inerrant, it just has to be accurate to the originals in order to have the same inspiration and inerrancy.A person can accept the Gospel based on an accurate translation of the Bible into their language without ever learning the original languages or doing a manuscript study. This is because ultimately, our understanding relies on the Holy Spirit acting in the world and giving us the correct understanding. We can't be trying to interpret it without God guiding us, as it says in John 16:13, "Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth:"And the Spirit of truth here refers to the Holy Ghost (see John 14:17, John 15:26). We are also reminded of this yet again elsewhere in the New Testament, which says the following:"Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost."- 2 Peter 1:20-21"But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him."- 1 John 2:27"Now he which stablisheth us with you in Christ, and hath anointed us, is God;22 Who hath also sealed us, and given the earnest of the Spirit in our hearts."- 2 Corinthians 1:21-22
>>18118768OP here, surprised by the quality of the responses. Thanks for the insights KJV bros.>>18118779>>18118783Yeah I am an autist for this lol. Reading in the original languages is difficult but super fun to me. I’m thinking about doing scholarly research on the Bible in the future so gotta be prepared!>>18118821>I don't think a translation has to be divinely inspired or inerrant, it just has to be accurate to the originals in order to have the same inspiration and inerrancy.I agree with this statement. What I was referring to are people that consider the KJV translation ITSELF divinely inspired like the original manuscripts were and think other translations are satanic or something (KJV-onlyists). For example, they’d hate the NKJV for using Modern English instead of Middle English grammar, believing altering the translation to be the same evil as altering the underlying text itself. They don’t believe the KJV to be just the best English translation, but hold as if it’s the original inerrant manuscript. It’s a small amount of people but enough that I wanted to see if that’s a significant opinion on here.Yeah, so far pretty good. Christ be with you bros.
This debate is strictly academic. Most Christians don't pay enough attention to the actual text for a translation to make a difference in their understanding.Obviously if you think the text is a complete and perfect divine sending, your paramount concern would be in the most original, most accurate possible read, which means the oldest possible read. Textualism would lead you to reject all post facto interpretations and commentary.But modern Christians actually practice a kludged-together folk religion that is more or less divorced from the text. No matter what language it's in, they think stuff is in the book that ain't there and they don't practice things or accept information that is laid out in black and white. They don't read it, so what difference does it make what language it's written in or what words have been changed?
>>18119789>For example, they’d hate the NKJV for using Modern English instead of Middle English grammar, believing altering the translation to be the same evil as altering the underlying text itself. They don’t believe the KJV to be just the best English translation, but hold as if it’s the original inerrant manuscript.I think there are people who have encountered the changes in the modern translations and know enough to understand that these are clearly loaded with corruptions, but then when they read the KJV they can see clearly that it's self-evidently true, and is clearly inspired by God. Some people have tried to argue that the 1611 translators had "new revelations" as a way to explain the observed discrepancy, such as an American writer called Peter Ruckman, but this would be a misguided attempt to explain what really happened. Unfortunately the existence of Ruckmanites and similar lines of thought is seized upon by opponents of the received text, who want to promote the critical text instead (sometimes called "multiple version onlyism"). To them, the "KJV only" term is used frequently as a label against those they disagree with. Some people who essentially have the "received text is inspired" view embrace this name which has been applied to them by their opponents, while others reject it. I understand why some people reject it, since it attributes clearly straw-man-like beliefs to them (such as, "the Bible can only be in English," etc), which they are constantly forced to explain they do not actually believe.A large part of this situation has to do with the opponents of the received text constantly muddying the waters with the "KJV onlyist" term. I believe this was conceived of as an attempt to mis-frame the controversy and make it about things other than the received text itself, which is what the 1611 translators originally used in the first place – along with help from previous English translations, like the Geneva Bible, for translational precedent.
>>18119789KJV-onlyism is a post hoc theological rationalization because they share the theological biases of the KJV translators that are worded differently in other translations.
>>18118768>believing the translation work itself to be divinely inspired/inerrantthat is what the authors claim for all different versions of the christian bible
>>18118768As someone who spent about a year on Biblical Greek (on a university level) and 6 months on Biblical Hebrew, it didn't really help. So if you decide to go ahead, count on it being a long way before you see any fruits.
