Thoughts about using a KJV update?
- Thread starter BibleBeliever5
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Davy
Well-Known Member
Nah, that's just a call for more laziness, since one can look up any of the terms in the KJV in a simple Lexicon like a Strong's Exhaustive Concordance. There's even a dictionary written for the Old English words used in the KJV. Lazy scholarship on the level of the Bible student is not enough reason to try and produce more... revisions. The "Bridge to Babylon" documentary reveals the KJV revisions only got away... from its original resources, and instead even supplanted it with corrupt resources. So more revisionists can be trusted? I think not!
Davy
Well-Known Member
Might want to do some research. Wescott and Hort's revised Greek New Testament was based on the Codex Alexandrinus, and used for the Revised Version of 1881, and the American Standard Version of 1901.
About the Mark 16:9-20 verses which the 1611 KJV has in it, in the 1978 NIV there is a footnote that says...
"The two most reliable early manuscripts do not have Mark 16:9-20." (my emphasis in red).
The 1611 KJV New Testament Greek is based on the Majority Texts which involve thousands of Greek manuscripts, which is why the Textus Receptus (Received Text) is called the Majority Text. Thus the "two most reliable early manuscripts" clause in the NIV is pointing directly to the Codex Vaticanus and the Codex Alexandrinus manuscripts which Wescott and Hort used for their Greek NT revision. Zondervon publishers of the NIV thus LIED with saying their NT version did not use the Alexandrian manuscript.
Davy
Well-Known Member
That is not true at all.
NIV completely leaves out Matthew 17:21
NIV completely omits Matthew 18:11
NIV completely omits Matthew 23:14
There's at least 13 more places in the NIV and NLT New Testament versions that completely omit verses that do exist in the 1611 KJV. In other places in the NIV and NLT there are parts of verses removed that exist in the KJV.
This was the reason why Wescott and Hort had to come up with their fake theory that the Textus Receptus manuscripts had revisions between 250-350 A.D. with adding to the manuscripts because its manuscripts contain more Scripture, while the Codex Vaticanus and Codex Alexandrinus mansucripts are SHORTER. In essence, they had to make some kind of EXCUSE for the Vaticanus and Alexandrinus manuscripts being shorter. And their THEORY could not be backed up by any historical evidence at all!
Davy
Well-Known Member
Then you're happy with door to door salesmen pushing the 'New and Improved' gadgetry. I'm not, I don't trust door to door salesmen.
Grailhunter
Well-Known Member
Grailhunter
Well-Known Member
The intent of the more modern translations is to be more accurate. Since the time of the KJV they have discovered older texts that did not have certain scriptures in them. So that means some where added, along with some theological words, like fornification that were formulated centuries later and inserted into Bibles like the Geneva Bible and the King James Version which introduced false beliefs. That is a long story in collegiate study.
In an attempt to present the word of God more accurately the NIV does not include these added scriptures or words.
The NASB on the other hand includes these added scriptures but puts them in brackets explaining that they did not exist in the older texts.
You have only mentioned a few, but the KJV is full of these. At last count about thirty, the most famous of which are the Johannine Comma Addition 1st John 5:7-8 and the story of the adulterous woman brought before Christ John 8:1-11
In an attempt to present the word of God more accurately the NIV does not include these added scriptures or words.
The NASB on the other hand includes these added scriptures but puts them in brackets explaining that they did not exist in the older texts.
You have only mentioned a few, but the KJV is full of these. At last count about thirty, the most famous of which are the Johannine Comma Addition 1st John 5:7-8 and the story of the adulterous woman brought before Christ John 8:1-11
Last edited:
Davy
Well-Known Member
Then that was a bogus collegiate study, because Wescott and Hort's fake theory about the additions in the KJV wasn't about the ENGLISH translation of the KJV, but about the GREEK MAJORITY TEXT manuscripts used for the KJV. Thus they were saying the actual Greek manuscripts (the Majority Texts, 5000+ of them), had been corrupted!
But the reality is that the TWO manuscripts Wescott and Hort claimed were 'older', and more accurate, because of not having been tampered with, show LITTLE USAGE, and are in small number of copies; while the Majority Texts used for the KJV New Testament make up the MAJORITY of EXISTING Greek texts (5000+), and show GREAT USAGE, and even can be verified in many of the quotes of the early Church fathers back in history! Those are all solid proofs of which Greek texts the early Church fathers relied upon and used, and it was the Majority texts.
So no surprise that some of today's universities are also on the boat to dump the good ole' 1611 KJV Bible.
Grailhunter
Well-Known Member
The simple fact is, that there are older example of texts now, then there were available during the time that the KJV was translated.
The facts are facts....I invite everyone to look into the history of all this. Don't let people pull the wool over your eyes. Why would someone want to base their religion on a translation that is literally famous for it errors and inaccuracies.
Don't get me wrong, I do like the King James Version for different things. It reads like poetry so at functions it is beautiful to read out loud. I have a collection of KJV Bibles....mostly pre-1900's and looking for those Bibles that have famous print errors....like the Adulterer's Bible, the Vinegar Bible, the Murmurers Bible, the Wife Hater's Bible...etc....they are very valuable.
It is just no good for biblical study because you really do not know whose "word" you are reading.
Last edited:
Deborah_
Well-Known Member
Not true. The words of Matthew 17:21 can be read at Mark 9:29.
The words of Matthew 18:11 can be read at Luke 19:10.
The words of Matthew 23:14 can be read at Mark 12:40 and Luke 20:47.
(And there are helpful footnotes in Matthew to point you to these places)
So they are not "completely omitted" from Scripture as a whole. All that has happened is that some duplications have been weeded out. As I say, I have never found this a problem. If I need to quote the words at any time, I just need to choose the right gospel.
Deborah_
Well-Known Member
Why is it "lazy" to want to just read the Bible, without having a dictionary or lexicon in one's hand at the same time? When the KJV was first published, people didn't need a lexicon in order to understand it. Were they lazy?
Whatever has a door-to-door salesman got to do with my bible of choice. i bought my first one direct from the Bible Society. And I am very happy with it. You are doing what you just accused a door-to-door salesman of doing - pushing a certain version at me. Just think about it. Anf FYI a bible is not 'gadgetry'.
Robert Gwin
Well-Known Member
I cannot agree sir, in fact I am quite shocked at how little reading comprehension skills many adults have. I didn't really notice it until I started teaching the Bible, I have came to the conclusion that 2 Cor 4:4 is very true.
i was given a new KJV bible when I was ten. I tried to read it but couldn't understand it. At thirty five when I became a Christian my CoE church used the GNT which I was able to read and understand. Today there is now possible reason to use the KJV apart from personal choice. And those who choose not to go with that one have plenty of other choices which can only be a good thing. It seems it is only hard-liners that still insist on the archaic versions as nobody in my church uses one.
You use a translation instead of a dictionary to figure out unknown words?
Sounds like Strongs is your next Bible.
Blame the parents, not the KJV.
We don't need a "Bible for illiterate', because we already have a cartoon Bible for them.
They need to practice reading with the KJV.
Jim B
Well-Known Member
The KJV is just one of many translations and, IMHO, is no the best by any means. It is based on earlier translations and a limited number of early texts (far fewer than what is available now). It is written to a long-dead culture in a long-dead language, not to those of us who live in the 21st Century. There is no doubt that modern translations are far better for those of us (including yourself) who read, write, and speak in modern English.
Why, if the KJV is so excellent, do you not speak or write in archaic Englyshe? IMHO you think that either a) the KJV translators were gifted more than modern translators or b) you like to feel somehow holy because you read a centuries-old translation in a dead language. Both are nonsense.
Personally I do NOT favor MODERN translations of the Bible...
Jim B
Well-Known Member
Personally, I do favor MODERN translations of the Bible. They are based on the best manuscripts and are the products of superb scholarship. None of them are authorized by a secular king to justify his personal theology. (There is a good reason that the Pilgrims fled from England with their Geneva translations in hand!)
My favorite translation is the NET v 2.1. It is a carefully-researched superb translation with over 60,000 translator's notes. And its goal is to produce the best translation for our modern minds, not to satisfy some monarch's idea of Christianity.
Similar threads
