Quote:
Originally Posted by ModernPuritan?  My only argument is with those that would say the KJV is the best/only "acceptable" translation of the TR. |
To say that the KJV is the 'best' is not the same thing as saying it is the 'only acceptable' translation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ModernPuritan? I find no reason that a group of Godly men couldnt accurately translate the TR today, using current, professional, scholarly english (none of the "yo man/dude trash) version. |
No doubt that this is true. However, because 'current' English is simply not as accurate as 'KJV' English, any attempt to modernize the language will result in less accuracy. Take, for example, the 'ye and you' of the KJV would become only 'you' in 'current' English no matter how professional or scholarly.
Those who advocate a 'current' English version of the TR must admit that they believe readability is more important than accuracy.
The flip side of the argument is that we ought to keep the accuracy of the KJV and teach people how to read it. That was the example of our Puritan forefathers because, as was noted before, the English of the KJV was never anyone's spoken English. It has always been a language that had to be learned.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ModernPuritan? see, the KJV borrows heavily from the GEneva Bible and another translation. |
Actually it was the Bishop's Bible that the KJV borrowed from most.
From the KJV translation rules as posted by Andrew here:
KJV Translation Rules Quote:
|
The first instructed them to make the "Bishop's Bible," so called, the basis of their work, altering it no further than fidelity to the originals required…
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by ModernPuritan? Id like to see how a ESV/NASB would have any negative effect on Doctrine, reproof, Instruction, etc.. as far as I can read the ESV/NKJV/NASB all use the TR as the primary ORigianl greek. |
See this awesome thread:
AV Theology Compared to Modern Versions