Mike wrote: I didn't realize the KJV translators even knew about the TR.
The collective term "Textus Receptus" was coined by the Elzivir brothers, (1624) from "textum ergo babes, nunc ab omnibus receptum..." ie "According to the text now held from the volume received..."
But the Greek texts have obviously been around for 2000 years. Thus including their availability in the 17th century.
"Erasmus published five editions of the New Testament. The first in 1516... "Robert Stephanus published four editions, dating from 1546 ... "Theodore Beza published several editions of the Greek New Testament. Four were published in 1565 ... "It is Beza's edition of 1598 and Stephanus edition of 1550 and 1551 which were used as the primary sources by the King James translators." (chick.com)
Robert wrote: The translators also considered other translations to be the Word of God, not just the KJV, "we do not deny, nay we affirm and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set forth by men of our profession, (for we have seen none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God." Please pay heed to these venerable men, and ditch your cult like behaviour.
The problem with supporting "other" modern translations eg NIV etc, is not so much the contest in translation minutiae, but the fact that they have used heretics like Westcott and Hort and dubious eclectic Greek texts.
The other translators and their product from the 16th century were probably more honest and anyway their version did not achieve what the KJV did in the hands of the Holy Spirit.
For the last four centuries the Holy Spirit used the KJV, no real Christian would argue with that or its expertise in pew or pulpit use.
John UK wrote: You have maintained that the translators simply used the Masoretic Text, and turned that Hebrew document into English. Not so, my friend. Check it out and observe exactly what the translators DID use for formulating the best, most accurate Bible ever produced in the English language.
Quote " Tthe KJV translators relied on a broad variety of resources, including Tyndale, the Latin Vulgate, the Geneva translation, the Bishopsâ€™ Bible, the Complutensian Polyglot, Matthewâ€™s Bible, Coverdale, Whitchurch, various commentaries, translations into Syrian, Spanish, French, Italian and Dutch, and other materials available at that time. Although many people seem to think that the KJV translators simply sat at a table or desk with a copy of the so-called Textus Receptus in one hand and pen and paper in the other, translating from that one Greek source, this is far from the truth." (T.H.Mann)
Jim Lincoln wrote: The NIV (especally the 1978), The Conflict Over Different Bible Versionsâ€“Part Five is the excellent translation that surpassed the AV in use and unless your a Shakespearean actor, you really should choose a church that uses a translation like, NASB, NKJV, or the NIV.
BAD Advice Jim. Alternatively..... Ammendments, omissions, changes and downright errors to be found in the MODERN VERSIONS due to the bad Greek texts they come from can be found at Modern Versions Tampered With