tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1494879303411564036.post1360410519316727421..comments2022-11-08T15:02:17.618+00:00Comments on The Sound of an Alarm: What is specifically wrong with new versions? Part 3Rev Brian McClunghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03440585427738798222noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1494879303411564036.post-81707507012659612112011-03-04T00:31:29.222+00:002011-03-04T00:31:29.222+00:00Michael
The issue is not about translations per s...Michael<br /><br />The issue is not about translations per se as you rightly point out. It is about the underlying text from which the translations come. That is why the details at the top of this blog refers to the Authorised Version as the most accurate English translation. <br /><br />Any translation can be improved I am sure. We have no time for those who argue that the KJV, as they call it, was 'inspired'. <br /><br />The translators of the Authorised Version recognised this themselves by including marginal references. I often make mention of these references when preaching. The FPC's contention is with the text that underlies the modern versions. <br /><br />The Authorised version used a different text, particularly in the New Testament, to the one which underlies the vast majority of the modern versions. Even the NKJV is influenced by this new text. The NKJV is not as many assume just an updating of the English language and this is why we hold the position that we do of only using the Authorised Version in our denomination. We don't believe there is a better English translation based upon the best texts available.<br /><br />Brian McClungRev Brian McClunghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03440585427738798222noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1494879303411564036.post-81675954217460320022011-03-03T18:00:20.594+00:002011-03-03T18:00:20.594+00:00But translations are translations, are they not? S...But translations are translations, are they not? Surely the KJV isn't 100% perfect... I only consider the original manuscripts to be the PURE Word of God.<br /><br />Some translations are worse than others. Don't ever forget that you are only dealing with a translation.<br /><br />The KJV is the only translation that I could really recommend to anyone though, maybe the NKJV if English isn't their mother tongue.Michaelnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1494879303411564036.post-30581208111042786612011-03-03T07:46:38.771+00:002011-03-03T07:46:38.771+00:00Sean
What exactly is your point?
Brian McClungSean<br /><br />What exactly is your point?<br /><br />Brian McClungRev Brian McClunghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03440585427738798222noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1494879303411564036.post-40286986895338669052011-03-02T22:59:59.402+00:002011-03-02T22:59:59.402+00:00"Considering that the translators are all dea..."Considering that the translators are all dead and have been for decades..."<br /><br />My point exactly....Sean Hagannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1494879303411564036.post-90254205728801952512011-03-02T00:06:28.815+00:002011-03-02T00:06:28.815+00:00Sean
Considering that the translators are all dea...Sean<br /><br />Considering that the translators are all dead and have been for decades your comment is a little far of the mark. The work on the Revised Version commenced in 1879 and was completed in 1885<br /><br />I read and seek to do some research on a subject like most other people. <br /><br />The unorthodox views of Westcott and Hort, the two principal translators of the new text, are very well documented. They did not seek to hide what it was that they were seeking to do with the Received Text that was the basis for the Authorised Version. <br /><br />I gave one quote in a previous post on versions where Hort spoke of the 'villainous Textus Receptus'. I even gave the whole quote in case anyone should feel that I was implying something that was not true. <br /><br />There are many more. <br /><br />We are holding a conference in Newtownabbey Free Presbyterian Church later this month [19th-21st] on the excellence of the Authorised Version and one of the subjects dealt with will be the corruptions in modern versions. <br /><br />Do you know that the Greek text underlying the New Testament in modern versions is approximately 2,500 words shorter than the Greek text underlying the New Testament in the Authorised Version? <br /><br />This is nearly 2% of the New Testament. It is the equivalent of removing I and II Peter from the Bible.<br /><br />Brian McClungRev Brian McClunghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03440585427738798222noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1494879303411564036.post-53951934666074894962011-03-01T23:05:37.730+00:002011-03-01T23:05:37.730+00:00"The sad conclusion to come to is that modern..."The sad conclusion to come to is that modern translations are corrupt Bibles because they come from corrupt manuscripts translated by corrupt men with corrupt motives.<br /><br />No believer who loves the pure Word of God should have anything to do with them."<br /><br />I take it that you know these people personally in order to make such sweeping statements?Sean Hagannoreply@blogger.com