4 ms·

> You certainly miss out on a lot of poetry and historical citations if you skip out on the KJV, and there's very few actual problems with it. Looking at the K

> You certainly miss out on a lot of poetry and historical citations if you skip out on the KJV, and there's very few actual problems with it. Looking at the KJV's book of Revelation, it contains all the errors that Erasmus's Greek manuscript for the book of Revelation has. It's a terrible, and often invented, translation of that book. It's not just a few problems with a word here or there, it's part translation, and part some book which was invented some time in the 16th-17th century. (Meaning that some of the KJV book of Revelation was invented at that time - the actual book was probably written in the 1st century).

Amezarak 4y ago
This is a huge overstatement of the problem, which generally refers to the last six verses of the book. Consider the comparison of the KJV with the NIV, which is based on a newer/modern critical Greek text. Eramus made up the missing verses by translating from the Vulgate. Otherwise the Greek variants that exist are defensible. https://biblehub.com/akjv/revelation/22.htm https://biblehub.com/akjv/revelation/22.htm https://biblehub.com/niv/revelation/22.htm https://biblehub.com/niv/revelation/22.htm As you can see, it says "book" when it should say "tree." You can compare KJV with the NIV and other editions. To say parts of the book were "invented" in the 16th century is going a few steps too far. It would be better to say that we now have a manuscript which we believe is probably better in that it is likely more faithful to the original...but which is not really substantially any different from the textus receptus. Revelation has very few Greek sources and they do contain variants, but precisely because of the lack of sources it's difficult to make strong claims about what is or isn't correct. [Ed - and it looks like book vs life is also entirely defensible after googling it - if it is an error, it is a very very old error, dating back at least to the 300s, and book does make theological sense - it would be far from the only reference to the book of life.)

Amezarak 4y ago

This is a huge overstatement of the problem, which generally refers to the last six verses of the book. Consider the comparison of the KJV with the NIV, which is based on a newer/modern critical Greek text. Eramus made up the missing verses by translating from the Vulgate. Otherwise the Greek variants that exist are defensible. https://biblehub.com/akjv/revelation/22.htm https://biblehub.com/akjv/revelation/22.htm https://biblehub.com/niv/revelation/22.htm https://biblehub.com/niv/revelation/22.htm As you can see, it says "book" when it should say "tree." You can compare KJV with the NIV and other editions. To say parts of the book were "invented" in the 16th century is going a few steps too far. It would be better to say that we now have a manuscript which we believe is probably better in that it is likely more faithful to the original...but which is not really substantially any different from the textus receptus. Revelation has very few Greek sources and they do contain variants, but precisely because of the lack of sources it's difficult to make strong claims about what is or isn't correct. [Ed - and it looks like book vs life is also entirely defensible after googling it - if it is an error, it is a very very old error, dating back at least to the 300s, and book does make theological sense - it would be far from the only reference to the book of life.)