| Line 12: |
Line 12: |
| | Around that time, in 1971 several major Bible translations appeared on the scene, such as the [[New American Standard Bible]] (NASB) and [[Living Bible|The Living Bible]] (a paraphrase) along with the second edition of the [[Revised Standard Version]] New Testament. Therefore, Fuller's book got far more attention than earlier works on this subject. As such, it is considered responsible for starting the KJV Only movement. | | Around that time, in 1971 several major Bible translations appeared on the scene, such as the [[New American Standard Bible]] (NASB) and [[Living Bible|The Living Bible]] (a paraphrase) along with the second edition of the [[Revised Standard Version]] New Testament. Therefore, Fuller's book got far more attention than earlier works on this subject. As such, it is considered responsible for starting the KJV Only movement. |
| | | | |
| − | KJV Only authors claim that ''[[Textus Receptus]]'', the Greek text used by KJV, is a more reliable text than the so-called Alexandrian text that is used by modern translations. TR was edited by Erasmus in 16th century and is based on several 12th century Byzantine manuscripts. | + | ==The KJV Only View== |
| | + | Generally speaking, KJV Only proponents claim that the Hebrew Masoretic and Greek Textus Receptus used in translating the KJV are more reliable texts than the texts that are used by modern translations. TR was edited by Erasmus in 16th century and is based on several 12th century Byzantine manuscripts. |
| | | | |
| − | Modern translations are based on ''Codex Vaticanus'' and ''Codex Sinaiticus'', both fourth century manuscripts. These two manuscripts are said to be "Alexandrian" because they have same type of text as ''[[Codex Alexandrinus]]'', a fifth century manuscript. In 1881, B.F. Westcott (1825-1903) and F.J.A. Hort produced a "Critical Text" based on these two manuscripts. Westcott and Hort figure prominently in KJO demonology, where the "Westcott and Hort Only" movement is denounced.<ref>Stringer, Dr. Phil, "[http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Bible/wh-only.htm The Westcott and Hort Only Controversy]"</ref> Modern Bible translations are based on Greek texts edited by [http://www.nestle-aland.com Nestle Aland] and the [http://www.unitedbiblesocieties.org United Bible Societies]. These are similar to Westcott-Hort, but take into account manuscripts and papyrus fragments that were discovered later. | + | Modern translations are based on ''Codex Vaticanus'' and ''Codex Sinaiticus'', both fourth century manuscripts. These two manuscripts are said to be "Alexandrian" because they have same type of text as ''Codex Alexandrinus'', a fifth century manuscript. In 1881, B.F. Westcott (1825-1903) and F.J.A. Hort produced a "Critical Text" based on these two manuscripts. Westcott and Hort figure prominently in KJO demonology, where the "Westcott and Hort Only" movement is denounced.<ref>Stringer, Dr. Phil, "[http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Bible/wh-only.htm The Westcott and Hort Only Controversy]"</ref> Modern Bible translations are based on Greek texts edited by [http://www.nestle-aland.com Nestle Aland] and the [http://www.unitedbiblesocieties.org United Bible Societies]. These are similar to Westcott-Hort, but take into account manuscripts and papyrus fragments that were discovered later. |
| | | | |
| | The ''New King James Version'' (1982) is a response to the text-based arguments of KJO writers. This translation is based on the King James Version, but with the language partly modernized. The preface claims that the work is a fresh translation of the "majority text," i.e. the text of the majority of surviving manuscripts. This justification was developed after lawyers for Thomas Nelson Publishers told the editors they would not be able to copyright a revision of KJV. As the majority of surviving Greek manuscripts are of the late Byzantine text type, the majority text is quite similar to Textus Receptus. | | The ''New King James Version'' (1982) is a response to the text-based arguments of KJO writers. This translation is based on the King James Version, but with the language partly modernized. The preface claims that the work is a fresh translation of the "majority text," i.e. the text of the majority of surviving manuscripts. This justification was developed after lawyers for Thomas Nelson Publishers told the editors they would not be able to copyright a revision of KJV. As the majority of surviving Greek manuscripts are of the late Byzantine text type, the majority text is quite similar to Textus Receptus. |