Are all modern English Bible translations based on the King James Version?
- Thread starter Patrick1966
- 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!
Michiah-Imla
Well-Known Member
Lambano
Well-Known Member
Nah. If you're going to hire a bunch of scholars to do a major project like that, you better do something to differentiate your work.
I read the preface to the NIV, and it claims their staff went back to the existent Greek and Hebrew manuscripts (some of which, like the Dead Sea Scrolls, were totally unknown to the KJV translators) and retranslated them. I would assume (I would hope!) that other translations would do the same. NETBible's footnotes (which are fascinating in themselves) usually indicate which manuscripts or families of manuscripts say what.
That said, you can sometimes see echoes of the KJV in other translations, especially in well-known verses. For example, the phrase "only-begotten" is rare in modern English, yet many translations of John 3:16 (including my preferred NASB) use this archaic phrase because most of the English-speaking Christian world knows it from the KJV.
I read the preface to the NIV, and it claims their staff went back to the existent Greek and Hebrew manuscripts (some of which, like the Dead Sea Scrolls, were totally unknown to the KJV translators) and retranslated them. I would assume (I would hope!) that other translations would do the same. NETBible's footnotes (which are fascinating in themselves) usually indicate which manuscripts or families of manuscripts say what.
That said, you can sometimes see echoes of the KJV in other translations, especially in well-known verses. For example, the phrase "only-begotten" is rare in modern English, yet many translations of John 3:16 (including my preferred NASB) use this archaic phrase because most of the English-speaking Christian world knows it from the KJV.
PossibleThrowawayAccount
Active Member
The King James version used the Vulgate (Latin, pretty much the only Bible for centuries), the Septugaint (Greek, commissioned by a Greek Egyptian Pharoah and translated by seventy-two Jewish translators), Textus Receptus (Latin, New Testament) and, silently, older English Bibles.
Most, if not all, modern Bibles use the Leningrad Codex, Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus, and other sources culled from Westcott and Hort.
Most, if not all, modern Bibles use the Leningrad Codex, Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus, and other sources culled from Westcott and Hort.
Robert Gwin
Well-Known Member
I am speaking in ignorance here, but I think many use it as a basis. I know the New World Translation is not. I would imagine that since we live in the age of information Pat, one might find a lot by simply Googling the version, and no doubt Wikipedia would have information on it as well, although all information is subject to error.
