After my comments to reba, I should attempt to move the conversation back to the KJV issue. Here are some comments on the OP.
I'm no longer convinced that the KJV is the only correct version,
Yeah!!!
although I don't believe they can all be correct.
Actually, if I can expand on your statement here.... Several translations can be correct and yet be different at the same time. One of the problems is the differences between the koine greek language and modern english. The languages are so different that there is rarely a word for word parallel translation. To illustrate this, if you look at the greek article, it is frequently very different in its use then the english article. I could attempt to illustrate this, but if you have little experience in languages, it would be hard to understand anyway.
Let me stop here and say that some translations are not translations at all. Of course the "New World Translation" and also paraphrases are not translations at all.
The usual issue is the differences between the NIV and the KJV. Actually, there is justification for both translations. The KJV is an attempt to go word for word a lot more than the NIV. The NIV philosophy of translation is "dynamic equivalency." They use a far greater range of english words to translate the greek words. The most extreme word for word translation is the American Standard Version. It is more word for word, greek to english, then the KJV. I generally use it in my quotes in these threads.
I was always taught that it was, though, and I have some serious doubts about some of the things I've been told. (I do think that the KJV is an excellent translation, though. And I've used it all my life, so I plan to keep using it.)
Just wanted to know more about other sides of the debate, and hopefully learn more.
One thing I was taught was that the KJV was translated from the textus receptus and that the modern translations were translated from a corrupt manuscript.
In my opinion, you were taught wrong here, very wrong. The first thing to begin with, is that there is no uncorrupted manuscript. This does not mean we cannot reestablish what the autographs wrote. A huge amount of scribal copying mistakes are obvious. Sometimes a scribe copied the same line of letters twice. That was obvious. Sometimes scribes used extra words to describe Jesus. When the text says "Lord Jesus" or in other places "Jesus Christ" the tendency of scribes might have been to holyize the text and say "the Lord Jesus Christ."
The textus receptus began by Erasmus Deciderous was a compilation of less than 10 late manuscripts. We now have over 5700 partial or complete manuscripts of the greek New Testament. There are also thousands and thousands more manuscripts in other languages, such as latin, Aramaic, etc. The textus receptus is only one part of the Byzantine tradition. In may places, the Byzantine disagrees with the TR. There is also a greek text done by Hodges and Farstatt called "the majority text." The list the differences between the majority text and the TR. So then, there are places that the TR is a minority reading.[/QUOTE]
They have also claimed that a lot of the people who translated the modern translations were agnostics rather than Christians.
Not sure about that anymore, and am especially skeptical about that last part.
Your skeptical for good reason. The translators of the NIV were evangelicals, not agnostics. I guess it is true that 2 of their number apostatized. On the other hand, the translators of the KJV were not all evangelicals, they were from the Church of England. Some of them were undoubtedly high Church anglicans. Also, it is true that Westcott and Hort were German liberal scholars. Nestly and Aland were also liberal in their theology.
The thing of it is, the theological background of a textual critic is not very significant if he or she is collating manuscripts. When it comes to the translation work, the Revised Standard did put its liberal bias into the translation several times. On the other hand, liberal or conservative bias is much harder to influence someone who is collating a text for a greek edition. I am not going to say that bias is even impossible there, but I think it would be painfully obvious. I myself would be very skeptical of any work done by Bart Erhman.
One book I read claimed that there were six translations before the KJV and that the KJV was translated at a time when the English language was at it's peak. Then it quoted a verse about God's Word being tried seven times.
The history on that sounds pretty accurate, but the conclusions the author came to based on it sound pretty subjective.
Ahh yes, I have heard this before. The KJV only people are referring to a specific OT verse. Where is that verse? I remember looking at this and the verse being quoted is totally out of context. Even the way that they count the 6 or 7 english texts was weird. I mean tyndale made his translation from Latin, not greek. Also, that OT verse was not talking about Bible translations. Think about it. If it were actually referring to translations, would we not have to count the Septuagint as the 1st? Would it not then be referring to the translation of the Hebrew Bible into any other language? Actually, there was a change in the Hebrew Alphabet. About the time of Ezra, the Jews moved from Paleo Hebrew to the Mazoretic script. Actually, the whole KJV only discussion of that verse (where is that verse?) is bizzaire.
It's also been claimed that a lot of the modern versions leave out important doctrines and that they have some verses missing.
Yes, KJV only people scream this loud, long, and passionately. The love to complain that the NIV takes away from the deity of Christ. All translators of the NIV accept the deity of Christ. What the KJV people are talking about here is that the Westcott Hort, or Nestle Aland compilations might have only 170 times that the term "Lord Jesus" is made. The KJV might have the term "Lord Jesus" 185 times. The bizarre thing is that the doctrine of the deity of Christ is based not upon terms that the apostles called Christ, but the actual teaching of the passages.
As an illustration, lets look at a passage in the NT which most loudly trumpets the deity of Christ.
Col 2:9 for in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily,
The name of Jesus does not appear in this verse, but it does appear right before it.
Col 2:6 As therefore ye received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk in him,
Now the quotes are from the American Standard, one of those boogie man translations according to KJV onlyists. But the defense of the deity of Christ in Colossians is not based upon the frequency of the use of the term "Lord Jesus Christ," but it is based upon the statement in Colossians 2:9.
P.S. If you could give sources for your information, that'd be helpful.
Sorry, I did not give sources (except for the ASV quote of Colossians).
