Results 1 - 2 of 2
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | short and long version of Mark 16:8 | Mark 16:9 | kalos | 125461 | ||
Certainty at any cost? 'A number of arguments have been put forth in defense of King James Onlyism.'...One of these is: 'We can't be certain of what God says unless we possess a single translation (and/or Greek text); that is, [KJV Only-ists claim], discrepancies among versions prove that one is correct and the others false.' 'The desire for absolute certainty when it comes to textual matters, while understandable, is not realistic. History has left us with numerous extant manuscripts. These not only differ from each other, but none are flawless representations of the autographs. Even the King James is not without imperfection. For example, "a dozen or so readings in the KJV find no support in any Greek manuscript whatsoever."[20]' 'Of course, some might be tempted to make the relative complexity of the textual critic's work a reason for skepticism. But Carson notes: 'There is no need for such rigorous pessimism. The vast majority of the manuscript errors have to do with details of orthography, word order, and the like. Moreover, many of the theologically significant variants can be sorted out quite easily by comparing manuscript with manuscript. The result . . . is a certain word from God.[24]' '20. D. A. Carson (The King James Version Debate: A Plea for Realism), 69. '24. Carson, 24.' ____________________ http://www.angelfire.com/pa2/truthandthings/perspect.kjo.html |
||||||
2 | short and long version of Mark 16:8 | Mark 16:9 | EdB | 125477 | ||
I hope that nobody that reads my part of this discussion thinks I'm for any particular translation. What I'm concerned about the multiple bases for the translation. As far as I know no one translation discounts any of the others, quite the opposite in many cases the various translations are compared and weighed and he one considered most closely fitting the philosophy of the particular translation is chosen. I think that is great!. However what I would like to see is that the various translation philosophies would still be used, however there would be only one group of manuscripts used as the basis and any discrepancies could then be footnoted. This way all Bible's despite translation philosophy would still contain all verses and etc. My suggestion is to use the TR as the basis as it reads, then apply Lockman’s translation philosophy to it, or the NIV philosophy or NLT or ESV. Any changes, discrepancies, additions or deletes could be clearly note in marginal notes. The resultant Bible would then read basically the same as another within the boundaries of the translation philosophy which would present the flavor of that translation. EdB |
||||||