Cheecha, I can see where you are coming from, and I appreciate your interest in discerning the truth of God’s word. But let me offer some information to help you think this matter through. In order to figure out which translation to use, one must first take notice of how translations come about. Within the first three centuries after the Greek New Testament was written, many copies were made by scribes who wanted to reproduce on a large scale the original manuscripts passed down to them. The copies were made rather freely, and it was only a matter of time before minor variants began to appear in them. For example, a particular scribe might have intentionally or unintentionally added or removed a word that had the effect of altering the what the original said. This would produce a change in the manuscript that was then reproduced on a large scale. Instances like this eventually gave birth to whole families to copies that share the same variants, otherwise known as families. Today these families are known as the “Alexandrian,” “Western,” and “Byzantine” text types. This classification is based upon the agreement of a group of manuscripts in a large number of variant readings. Most changes made to the original manuscripts would have probably been made within these first three centuries of copying, since in the fourth century the church determined which 66 books were the official Bible, thus scribes and copyists were less likely to make alterations. The first Greek New Testament to be printed using a printing press was produced in Spain in 1514 and was issued on 1522. Meanwhile, a famous humanist scholar named Erasmus of Rotterdam was putting together his own Greek New Testament, and it was printed in 1516 after only six months of hasty preparation. This text provided the Greek basis for Luther’s translation of the New Testament into German in 1522. By then, Erasmus’ Greek New Testament was in its third edition and was used for Tyndale’s translation of 1525, the language of which is still embedded in the KJV. Erasmus’ text was based on a few late Byzantine manuscripts (widely known to be suspected of alteration in the fourth century) that were available to him at the time, and he was forced to supply missing portions of the Book of Revelation. This same text was later used by the Elziver brothers of Holland, whose translation contained the famous words in their preface, “Textum ergo habes, nun cab omnibus receptum,” (“You have therefore the text now received by all”) from which we get the label, “Textus Receptus,” or “Received Text.” This is the text underlying the KJV of 1611 and remained the main Greek text until the publication of the English Revised Version (ERV) of 1881. But since the work of Erasmus, a significant number of ancient manuscripts of the New Testament (and of the Old Testament in Greek) have been discovered and brought to light. They come from an earlier period than those used by Erasmus. Not only are they older, but they differ in numerous places from the texts that have been previously used. The work done by the great Cambridge scholars B.F. Westcott and F.J.A. Hort brought into existence a new era of textual criticism. They published an updated and improved text in 1881 called the “New Testament in the Original Greek.” Since 1881, recognizing the superiority of the Westcott-Hort (W-H) text, the majority of English translations (including the NASB, NRSV, NIV, and REB ) have used a text much closer to the W-H than that of Erasmus. In the 20th century, the New Testament in Greek has been edited by both Protestant and Catholic scholars alike. The most widely used forms of the text are the Nestle-Aland and the United Bible Society’s GNT. However, there are still some scholars who argue that the Textus Receptus is the text that most closely resembles the earliest manuscripts. While recent discoveries and modern scholarship has shed light on the massive shortcomings of the Textus Receptus (and the English translations that come from it, i.e. the KJV), the debate rages on. In the end, no group has the original manuscripts, and whether it is the KJV or the NIV, you’re looking at an English translation that comes from a collection of Greek manuscripts, none of which show up onto the scene at least until the 17th century. So, what does this mean? For starters, the KJV is no more “the Bible” than the NIV, NASB, or NRSV. It is an Englsh translation. Popular? Yes. But a translation nonetheless. As one who has studied Greek for three years both in college and Seminary, I would suggest that the KJV is not a reliable English translation. I believe that modern scholarship has shown that the United Bible Society’s GNT (the Greek New Testament I use) is the most accurate and reliable we have. Therefore, English translations based on this text are the most accurate and reliable. If you’re looking for an English translation that comes as close to the original as you can get, I would say to look no further than the New American Standard Bible. While not the easiest to read, it is a great literal translation of a reliable Greek text, and is far superior to the KJV in every respect – something agreed upon by nearly every scholar (both liberal and conservative) on the subject there is. I hope this makes sense. I don’t want to come across the wrong way. You asked for correction, and hopefully I have offered something for you to think about. The KJV is valuable and has meant a lot to many Christians for hundreds of years. But by no means is it somehow superior to any other English translation. Instead, it is quite inferior and must be approached with a healthy dose of skepticism. Please note that I am not a liberal. I am conservative and I attend one of the few remaining institutions in America that fights for the integrity and inerrancy of Scripture. I assure you that as you do your research into this matter you will soon discover for yourself that, unless you want to learn Greek and the principles of textual criticism, you would do yourself a favor by embracing something other than the KJV. P.S. One of my professors in Seminary, and a good friend, is Dr. John Oswalt. Dr. Oswalt was on the translation team for the New Living Translation that you mentioned in your previous post. Dr. Oswalt is, in my mind, the finest Old Testament scholar in America and an incredible scholar of the Hebrew language. I can guarantee you that if Dr. Oswalt worked on the NLT it is a very trustworthy translation. It is by no means a \"commentary,\" and neither are the other English translations.

Post edited by: sscribner, at: 2007/03/13 01:05