Is it time to say good bye to the KJV

[Rex]

Axehead, the reality is actually that the KJV added these differences you note, and not that the modern translations took them out. The KJV is based on a different manuscript tradition than most modern translations. In 1611, they didn't have access to manuscripts more than a few centuries old at that time. Today, with all the discoveries made over the last 400 years, we have many manuscripts much closer to the originals. We are able to gather a more accurate reading of what the originals actually said, and this in reality is what accounts for the differences you note.

There is a number of great articles on this subject which you can read on here. Don't get me wrong, I like the KJV and think it is a good translation, but the arguments that it is better or more authoritative than the modern translations are simply not grounded in the facts.


Besides, the same exact arguments can be made in reverse. There are examples that can be given where the modern translations say "Jesus Christ" etc. and all the KJV says is "him." It goes both ways. So like I said, the arguments for the KJV being more authoritative are simply not grounded in the facts. They are very poorly researched.

I disagree in another vein. I have many computerized bibles on hand held devices comparing versions during a study is easy.
I will say I have noticed that it goes deeper than even Axehead describes. I have noticed that some of the key verses I have used, now with more modern translations phrased them in such a way as to reflect modern theology. It goes much deeper than AH presentation. If you don't have a background of understanding theology you will never notice the difference. They lead people to believe a certain teaching by simply choosing a slightly different choice of words. You always have the man in the middle with translations, I not advocating its impossible to have a accurate English translation, but translators are like Christians today, simple proclamation isn't the whole story. Just the other day I was talking abot danial 9:24-27 and was shocked to see the liberty the ESV took with even the Strongs 1769 Hebrew translation.

 

[jiggyfly]

KJV is far from being the most accurate English translation, people should educate themselves with the history and facts regarding the KJV and it's beginning and that way they wont speak out of ignorance.

 

[epostle1]

Andy, I have a AD33 copy of the KJV in Elizabethan English that's much older than yours. I know it's authentic because it's called the King James Bible and the back cover is signed by Jesus in red ink.

(Tongue-in-cheek disclaimer.)

:lol:

The best Bible version is ...


...the one you read.

 

[doulosChristou]

I disagree in another vein. I have many computerized bibles on hand held devices comparing versions during a study is easy.
I will say I have noticed that it goes deeper than even Axehead describes. I have noticed that some of the key verses I have used, now with more modern translations phrased them in such a way as to reflect modern theology. It goes much deeper than AH presentation. If you don't have a background of understanding theology you will never notice the difference. They lead people to believe a certain teaching by simply choosing a slightly different choice of words. You always have the man in the middle with translations, I not advocating its impossible to have a accurate English translation, but translators are like Christians today, simple proclamation isn't the whole story. Just the other day I was talking abot danial 9:24-27 and was shocked to see the liberty the ESV took with even the Strongs 1769 Hebrew translation.

Care to elaborate on some examples? I am sure I can keep up.

 

[veteran]

Axehead, the reality is actually that the KJV added these differences you note, and not that the modern translations took them out. The KJV is based on a different manuscript tradition than most modern translations. In 1611, they didn't have access to manuscripts more than a few centuries old at that time. Today, with all the discoveries made over the last 400 years, we have many manuscripts much closer to the originals. We are able to gather a more accurate reading of what the originals actually said, and this in reality is what accounts for the differences you note.

I don't know who you're listening to about that, but they spoon-fed you wrong information.

The KJV Bible is from the Hebrew massorah texts for the Old Testament and for the Greek it is from the Majority texts, which means the MAJORITY of Greek manuscripts (copies in the thousands showing much use). Many of the 'new-and-improved' modern Bible translations are from a smaller number of Alexandrian texts for the NT, which exist very few in number and shown to have not been in much use. This reveals the majority of the early Churches used the Majority Texts simply because so many copies of the Majority Texts exist that show much use.

The same thing that was happening in the early Church with the Gnostic movement is still happening today with their followers who seek to change what God's Word says by trying to feed us 'new-and-improved' Bible translations, with telling us these later ones are more accurate, easier to understand, etc., which are nothing but LIES from the workers of darkness.

 

[mjrhealth]

If you have Jesus you already have the truth, and when you have the truth you will soon discover there is no accurate bible out ther, wheter you may call it the word of God or not, how can it be if they are all different, is Gods word differnet does it change. I think not but mens opinions always change.

in all His Love

 

[doulosChristou]

I don't know who you're listening to about that, but they spoon-fed you wrong information.

The KJV Bible is from the Hebrew massorah texts for the Old Testament and for the Greek it is from the Majority texts, which means the MAJORITY of Greek manuscripts (copies in the thousands showing much use). Many of the 'new-and-improved' modern Bible translations are from a smaller number of Alexandrian texts for the NT, which exist very few in number and shown to have not been in much use. This reveals the majority of the early Churches used the Majority Texts simply because so many copies of the Majority Texts exist that show much use.

The same thing that was happening in the early Church with the Gnostic movement is still happening today with their followers who seek to change what God's Word says by trying to feed us 'new-and-improved' Bible translations, with telling us these later ones are more accurate, easier to understand, etc., which are nothing but LIES from the workers of darkness.

Right back at ya? You think you're clever, but you're not. About 80% of Greek manuscripts are in the Byzantine family, correct. But you're missing the point. The number of manuscripts is not what counts. What counts is how close they are to the originals. While the majority of Greek manuscripts are in that family, the vast majority of Byzantine texts are from the 10th - 15th centuries. It's no wonder we would have so many of them. They are more recent and thus more likely to still be found. But guess what the "Majority Text" was during the first 1000 years after Christ? That's right, the Alexandrian manuscripts. We have fewer of them only because they are a thousand years older. That doesn't make them a less reliable text. As a matter of fact, quite the opposite. They are closer to the originals, and we still have a whole lot of them anyway (there are thousands of manuscripts in total). Less time between the copy and the original suggests greater accuracy.

Additionally, the Byzantine family of manuscripts was put together by Erasmus, one man. He published the first edition of the Greek NT in the 1500s and this is what was used by the KJV translators for their New Testament. Modern translations, however, draw from a variety of sources (including some of the Byzantine texts) in order to check them all against one another and note the variations. Some of the manuscripts drawn from date as early as just a few decades after the apostles walked the earth. Remember, the KJV draws from a manuscript tradition almost entirely comprised of copies that date over 1000 years after Christ. It is less accurate (but even so, it is still a remarkable testimony to God's provision of His Word to see just how accurate and similar the texts are, even when separated by 1000 years) because it is based on less evidence. The book of Revelation in Erasmus's work, in fact, was translated from a single manuscript, and he was rushed to complete his work. This accounts for the fact that the KJV has entire words in Revelation that do not appear in the vast majority of manuscripts that we now have for that book.

So, actually, the "modern" translation is the KJV. It's only 400 years old. The historical translations are technically the ESV, NASB, etc. because they are based on much more and much earlier manuscript evidence.

If you have Jesus you already have the truth, and when you have the truth you will soon discover there is no accurate bible out ther, wheter you may call it the word of God or not, how can it be if they are all different, is Gods word differnet does it change. I think not but mens opinions always change.

in all His Love

Well that's not something you hear everyday. How do you know you have the truth, and how do you know you have Jesus, if you don't think the Bible is accurate? How do you know that what you're reading is trustworthy?

There aren't different Bibles. There are just different translations. But that's just like you'd get different translations when translating any text. There are different ways of expressing the same idea. That doesn't mean there are different ideas themselves being expressed.

 

[veteran]

Right back at ya? You think you're clever, but you're not. About 80% of Greek manuscripts are in the Byzantine family, correct. But you're missing the point. The number of manuscripts is not what counts. What counts is how close they are to the originals. While the majority of Greek manuscripts are in that family, the vast majority of Byzantine texts are from the 10th - 15th centuries. It's no wonder we would have so many of them. They are more recent and thus more likely to still be found. But guess what the "Majority Text" was during the first 1000 years after Christ? That's right, the Alexandrian manuscripts. We have fewer of them only because they are a thousand years older. That doesn't make them a less reliable text. As a matter of fact, quite the opposite. They are closer to the originals, and we still have a whole lot of them anyway (there are thousands of manuscripts in total). Less time between the copy and the original suggests greater accuracy.

More junk information. The Alexandrian manuscripts were NEVER the Majority texts of the NT.

The Textus Receptus (Received Texts or Majority Texts) agree with the earlier known NT texts of the Peshitta Version (A.D.150), the Italic Bible (A.D.157), the Waldenensian (A.D. 120 forward), the Galic Bible (A.D. 177), the Gothic Bible (A.D. 330-350), the Syriac Bible (A.D. 400), the Armenian Bible (A.D. 400, great number of copies still exist), the Palenstinian Syriac (A.D. 450), etc. It even agrees with the old Latin Bible of A.D. 150's.

The Textus Receptus the KJV uses is based on the majority of existing Greek texts, something around 5300 manuscripts. That... is why the Textus Receptus is called The MAJORITY Text.

 

[jiggyfly]

IMO many of the religious folk would be utterly lost and stumble without their precious KJV.

 

[Axehead]

IMO many of the religious folk would be utterly lost and stumble without their precious KJV.

Ahh, that's not nice to say. Let's keep the conversation on the translators and the translations. There is always someone that can be bashed on all sides who may be extreme.

More junk information. The Alexandrian manuscripts were NEVER the Majority texts of the NT.

The Textus Receptus (Received Texts or Majority Texts) agree with the earlier known NT texts of the Peshitta Version (A.D.150), the Italic Bible (A.D.157), the Waldenensian (A.D. 120 forward), the Galic Bible (A.D. 177), the Gothic Bible (A.D. 330-350), the Syriac Bible (A.D. 400), the Armenian Bible (A.D. 400, great number of copies still exist), the Palenstinian Syriac (A.D. 450), etc. It even agrees with the old Latin Bible of A.D. 150's.

The Textus Receptus the KJV uses is based on the majority of existing Greek texts, something around 5300 manuscripts. That... is why the Textus Receptus is called The MAJORITY Text.

That's exactly correct, Veteran. Thank you for setting the record straight.

I disagree in another vein. I have many computerized bibles on hand held devices comparing versions during a study is easy.
I will say I have noticed that it goes deeper than even Axehead describes. I have noticed that some of the key verses I have used, now with more modern translations phrased them in such a way as to reflect modern theology. It goes much deeper than AH presentation. If you don't have a background of understanding theology you will never notice the difference. They lead people to believe a certain teaching by simply choosing a slightly different choice of words. You always have the man in the middle with translations, I not advocating its impossible to have a accurate English translation, but translators are like Christians today, simple proclamation isn't the whole story. Just the other day I was talking abot danial 9:24-27 and was shocked to see the liberty the ESV took with even the Strongs 1769 Hebrew translation.

That is exactly correct, Rex. It does go much deeper. I was weighing in with just a taste of how the New Bible Versions are "dumbing down" the Scriptures.

New Versions change the Gospel.
The NIV and NASB support New Age Philosophy.
New Versions demote Jesus Christ where several New Version Bibles follow the Jehovah Witness bible and dozens and dozens of verses in the NKJV that support New Age philosophy.

"Now the serpent was more subtil..." Gen. 3:1

 

[dragonfly]

I don't have an academic comment to make. Mine is based on coming to newer translations long after having God speak to me through the KJV, and realising that the Spirit has more liberty with the KJV because of not having standardised verb tenses. This brings the eternal perspective up close and personal, while modern translations not only alter what the text is saying, but introduce a philosophical edge which is entirely foreign to the KJV.

You know that 'sophistry' means corruption, don't you? There is no such thing as Godly philosophy. Philosophy only plays at seeking the Truth.

 

[Axehead]

Amen, Dragonfly. People never stop to think that "Translators" have theological viewpoints, too.

Like the original OP says, "It has served us well for 400 years." Why would you move on from something that "has served us well?" Move on to what? What we have below?

Let's show the differences and let people make up their own minds. Here are just a few things from only one New Bible version.

"Now the serpent was more subtil..." Gen_3:1"

 

[doulosChristou]

More junk information. The Alexandrian manuscripts were NEVER the Majority texts of the NT.

The Textus Receptus (Received Texts or Majority Texts) agree with the earlier known NT texts of the Peshitta Version (A.D.150), the Italic Bible (A.D.157), the Waldenensian (A.D. 120 forward), the Galic Bible (A.D. 177), the Gothic Bible (A.D. 330-350), the Syriac Bible (A.D. 400), the Armenian Bible (A.D. 400, great number of copies still exist), the Palenstinian Syriac (A.D. 450), etc. It even agrees with the old Latin Bible of A.D. 150's.

The Textus Receptus the KJV uses is based on the majority of existing Greek texts, something around 5300 manuscripts. That... is why the Textus Receptus is called The MAJORITY Text.

I get the feeling you didn't actually read my post. You call my time spent replying to you, "junk information," yet it doesn't appear to me you even listened to my argument. No one is debating the fact that Byzantine manuscripts make up the majority today. That's not the point. The point is which text-type made up the majority of manuscripts closer in time to the originals?

The Byzantine text type did not become dominant until the Minuscules writing style started to replace the historical Uncials, which was in the 9th to 10th centuries. This is because the 9th and 10th centuries is when you had a lot of recopying going on due to this new writing style. That is when the Byzantine text took off. To assert that the Byzantine text was the dominant text prior to the 9th century, as I've already mentioned, is an argument from silence. You can't argue that the Byzantine text was more dominant in that period just because we have more surviving manuscripts from the 10th century on. You're not going to have as many surviving manuscripts from the early centuries, regardless of which text-type they are.

But the point is, the majority of those prior to the 9th century which have survived are, in fact (and by fact I mean you can simply look this up), Alexandrian. So it simply is not true to state that the Alexandrian text was never the dominant text. All the evidence points to the likelihood that before the recopying in the 9th century, it in fact was. The Chester Beatty II, Bodmer II, VII-VIII, XIV-XV; Codex Vaticanus Graecus 1209; Codex Sinaiticus; Codex Alexandrinus; Codex Borgianus; Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus; Codex Washingtonianus; Codex Guelferbytanus B; Codex Freerianus; Codex Dublinensis; Codex Regius; Minuscule 33, 893 and 81; Uncial 057 and 0220; Codex Coislinianus; Zacynthius; Dublinensis; Porphyrianus; all Alexandrian text types, all some of the earliest and most important manuscripts we have, and we could go on and on. The famous Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus in particular are the oldest near-complete manuscripts we have of the New Testament, and they are almost purely Alexandrian texts.

Thus, the Byzantine text-type is called the Majority Text because it makes up the majority of the manuscripts we have today. However, that is not the case when you consider only those manuscripts prior to the 9th century. It is only the case because the vast majority of the manuscripts that we have were copied after the 9th century. Again, to assert that the Byzantine text-type was always the majority text is not only factually incorrect, but it is also an assertion that must rely on an argument from silence, because you can't expect for as many manuscripts from the first century to have survived as from the second century. So a comparison of the total number of Byzantine texts to the total number of Alexandrian texts, for instance, would not be an accurate comparison, because it is a disproportionate comparison. You have to compare the number of B-type to A-type after the 9th century, and the number of B-type to A-type prior to the 9th century. When you do that, what you find is the B-type is the dominant in the second millenium, but the A-type in the first, closer to the originals.

As for your list of early NT texts, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make there. What evidence do you have to suggest that these texts are based on the majority manuscript evidence of that era? No one is arguing that the Byzantine text-type did not exist prior to the 9th century. Only that it was not the majority of that millenium. The simple fact is, many of these early NT texts you mention have issues associated with them that would not help either argument here. The Peshitta, for instance, differs from both the Byzantine and Alexandrian text types more than it agrees with either. See Metzger's book Early Versions of the New Testament for a discussion on that.

New Versions change the Gospel.
The NIV and NASB support New Age Philosophy.
New Versions demote Jesus Christ where several New Version Bibles follow the Jehovah Witness bible and dozens and dozens of verses in the NKJV that support New Age philosophy.

"Now the serpent was more subtil..." Gen. 3:1

This is simply a dishonest remark. One which I have already responded to in an earlier reply, which you had nothing to say about. For every case in which you can show that the modern versions state "Jesus Christ" with "he," the same exact thing can be shown the other way around. Consider just a couple examples.

John 1:18, KJV:

"No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him."

John 1:18, NRSV:


"No one has ever seen God. It is God the only Son, who is close to the Father's heart, who has made him known."

Here's a good one. John 14:14. Jehovah's Witnesses will argue that Christ never commanded us to pray to Him, and the reason they will give is because their own translation leaves out the word "me" in the beginning of John 14:14. The KJV does the same:

"If you ask anything..." KJV

"If you ask me anything..." NASB

Again, Revelation 1:8, KJV:

"I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty."

Rev. 1:8, NASB:


"I am the Alpha and the Omega," says the Lord God, "who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty."

Here's one of my favorites. 1 John 3:1, NASB:


"See how great a love the Father has bestowed on us, that we would be called children of God; and such we are."

1 John 3:1, KJV:


"Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God"

Oops! Should we conclude from this that there is a conspiracy in the KJV to remove the assurance of the adoption of sons from the text? Well, if you are consistent with your style of argumentation, you should anyway. But I don't think you will be.

So the same arguments that you raise can be raised against your own position. You're not listening to a balanced assessment of all the facts. You're choosing which facts you want to consider, and which you want to ignore, because certain ones are convenient for justifying for yourself what you've already chosen to believe.




I'm sorry, but to argue that differences as slight as this are evidence of a "New Age Agenda" is laughably absurd. Some of the most conservative, faithful Bible scholars in the world are on the translation committies of some of the better modern versions such as the NASB and the ESV (I'll gladly stand with you against the NIV, however; I do believe there's a lot of bias read into that one). They would not water down the gospel. They preach it faithfully all the time. And besides, the message of Scripture is clear. One would have to do far more to distort that message than to make such minor translation differences as these. The doctrine of Christ's divinity is not merely based on a couple verses in the KJV that say "the Son is God"! It is clearly seen in any translation, even the bad ones for crying out loud.

 

[veteran]

I get the feeling you didn't actually read my post. You call my time spent replying to you, "junk information," yet it doesn't appear to me you even listened to my argument. No one is debating the fact that Byzantine manuscripts make up the majority today. That's not the point. The point is which text-type made up the majority of manuscripts closer in time to the originals?

The Byzantine text type did not become dominant until the Minuscules writing style started to replace the historical Uncials, which was in the 9th to 10th centuries. This is because the 9th and 10th centuries is when you had a lot of recopying going on due to this new writing style. That is when the Byzantine text took off. To assert that the Byzantine text was the dominant text prior to the 9th century, as I've already mentioned, is an argument from silence. You can't argue that the Byzantine text was more dominant in that period just because we have more surviving manuscripts from the 10th century on. You're not going to have as many surviving manuscripts from the early centuries, regardless of which text-type they are.

But the point is, the majority of those prior to the 9th century which have survived are, in fact (and by fact I mean you can simply look this up), Alexandrian. So it simply is not true to state that the Alexandrian text was never the dominant text. All the evidence points to the likelihood that before the recopying in the 9th century, it in fact was. The Chester Beatty II, Bodmer II, VII-VIII, XIV-XV; Codex Vaticanus Graecus 1209; Codex Sinaiticus; Codex Alexandrinus; Codex Borgianus; Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus; Codex Washingtonianus; Codex Guelferbytanus B; Codex Freerianus; Codex Dublinensis; Codex Regius; Minuscule 33, 893 and 81; Uncial 057 and 0220; Codex Coislinianus; Zacynthius; Dublinensis; Porphyrianus; all Alexandrian text types, all some of the earliest and most important manuscripts we have, and we could go on and on. The famous Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus in particular are the oldest near-complete manuscripts we have of the New Testament, and they are almost purely Alexandrian texts.

Thus, the Byzantine text-type is called the Majority Text because it makes up the majority of the manuscripts we have today. However, that is not the case when you consider only those manuscripts prior to the 9th century. It is only the case because the vast majority of the manuscripts that we have were copied after the 9th century. Again, to assert that the Byzantine text-type was always the majority text is not only factually incorrect, but it is also an assertion that must rely on an argument from silence, because you can't expect for as many manuscripts from the first century to have survived as from the second century. So a comparison of the total number of Byzantine texts to the total number of Alexandrian texts, for instance, would not be an accurate comparison, because it is a disproportionate comparison. You have to compare the number of B-type to A-type after the 9th century, and the number of B-type to A-type prior to the 9th century. When you do that, what you find is the B-type is the dominant in the second millenium, but the A-type in the first, closer to the originals.

As for your list of early NT texts, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make there. What evidence do you have to suggest that these texts are based on the majority manuscript evidence of that era? No one is arguing that the Byzantine text-type did not exist prior to the 9th century. Only that it was not the majority of that millenium. The simple fact is, many of these early NT texts you mention have issues associated with them that would not help either argument here. The Peshitta, for instance, differs from both the Byzantine and Alexandrian text types more than it agrees with either. See Metzger's book Early Versions of the New Testament for a discussion on that.

The list of NT texts the Textus Receptus agrees with, which I listed, is proof of its accuracy with the NT text the early Churches used. John Burgon also established that the early Church used the Byzantine text, which is the traditional Textus Receptus (Received Text or Majority Text).

ONLY in the 19th century has the "Critical text", or so-called "eclectic text" from the Alexandrian school for newer modern translationas been pushed. It totally omits... Scripture quoted by the early Church fathers of the 3rd and 4th centuries, which is one of several proofs to show they did NOT use it. For example, Mark 16:9-20 was quoted by Irenaeus and Hippolytus in the 2nd century which is missing in two Alexandrian manuscripts (Sinai and Vatican). These are just a couple of the failures of the Alexandrian texts that shows the fallacy of arguments about their authenticity based on how old the Alexandrian texts are.

Axehead has given obviously important reading differences between the Alexandrian and the Byzantine to reveal this plainly.

 

[HammerStone]

For example, Mark 16:9-20 was quoted by Irenaeus and Hippolytus in the 2nd century which is missing in two Alexandrian manuscripts (Sinai and Vatican). These are just a couple of the failures of the Alexandrian texts that shows the fallacy of arguments about their authenticity based on how old the Alexandrian texts are.

And that's just not the whole story, either. Some fathers quoted it, and others never did even when making a defense or explanation of events that would have drawn from the subject of Mark 16:9-20. The passages are absent from the two earliest Greek manuscripts [Bruce Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (Stuttgart, 1971), pages 122-126]. Eusebus and Jerome even stated that the passage was absent from all Greek copies known to them at the time. Many manuscripts even have their version of notes/markers about the passage that convey the ambiguity of the passage in terms of it being a later addition.

In addition to this, I will point out that most of my Critical Text-based editions of the Bible: ESV, HCSB, NIV, etc. all provide the verses with some sort of accompanying footnote explaining that some manuscripts have the passage, and others don't.