Walter Hicks wrote:
> Troy Elliott Eckhardt wrote:
> .................................................................
> > I must also confess that I recognize only the Authorized (King James) Bible
> > as scripture in English. (Do I hear feathers rustling?) There are too many
> > differences between the versions for them all to be correct. I also don't
> > care for, nor do I intend to initiate, a debate on this issue. I have
> > debated it before, heard all of the arguments both for and against, analyzed
> > the situation, and have made a personal decision. Either there is absolute
> > authority, or there is not. This decision is based on my belief in the
> > inspiration of the Textus Receptus over the Latin Vulgate, if you really
> > want to know.
>
> I believe that is a very good position. Others have quoted later
> translations as resolving some issues -- but that could well be because
> they were "interpretations" instead of "translations".
On the contrary, it is a completely absurd position. Since the
"reception" of TR & the translation of KJV,
a) we've found manuscripts that weren't available then,
b) we know a lot more about the cultures in which the Bible was written,
and
c) we know the biblical languages better.
In addition, the English language has changed greatly since 1607 so that use of
KJV in some places just doesn't communicate with many English speaking persons
today.
This is not to deny that in specific places the rendering of KJV is
superior to that of many modern translations or that its literary quality (for
those sufficiently familiar with late 16th century English) better. But there is
absolutely no basis for the notion that it is intrinsically more authoritative
than, e.g., RSV or NIV.
Shalom,
George
George L. Murphy
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
"The Science-Theology Interface"
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Mar 16 2002 - 21:04:56 EST