KJV versus Modern Translations

[Preacher4Truth]

No, it seems everyone else wants to argue. I am saying what is the 'so called' big differences' in the KJV of 1611 and that of today? So far it is just spelling. Oh gee, that is really big!

Stranger

Look at the link provided you. It's not just spelling.

 

[Stranger]

Then why was it included between the old And new testaments and listed in the index as just other books of the Bible?

There were no 'other books of the Bible' as far as Scripture. As far as other books that claimed inspiration, there were others. But they were not accepted.

The Apocryphal books were always doubted. And so rejected as inspired by God.

Stranger

 

[Stranger]

Look at the link provided you. It's not just spelling.

Then you present it. I could send you also to a lot of 'links'. Grow some. Take some responsibility. Stand on what you say...and not just a link.

Stranger

 

[farouk]

No not at all for me. I get it I had experience with early modern English . Where many don't . Never knew doing Shakespeare was going to come in handy .
I will say many people have problems with the language. For younger folks I recommend ESV or NKJ
I also like the poetic sense of the KJV .
I also have it among other translations for Bible study .
Blessings
Bill

The KJ21 and NKJV do seem to avoid some of the bobos of many other more modern versions...

 

[CoreIssue]

There were no 'other books of the Bible' as far as Scripture. As far as other books that claimed inspiration, there were others. But they were not accepted.

The Apocryphal books were always doubted. And so rejected as inspired by God.

Stranger

And yet firmly in the list of books of the Bible and the 1611.

APOCRYPHA KJV
The apocrypha is a selection of books which were published in the original 1611 King James Bible. These apocryphal books were positioned between the Old and New Testament (it also contained maps and geneologies). The apocrypha was a part of the KJV for 274 years until being removed in 1885 A.D. A portion of these books were called deuterocanonical books by some entities, such as the Catholic church.

Many claim the apocrypha should never have been included in the first place, raising doubt about its validity and believing it was not God-inspired (for instance, a reference about magic seems inconsistent with the rest of the Bible: Tobit chapter 6, verses 5-8). Others believe it is valid and that it should never have been removed- that it was considered part of the Bible for nearly 2,000 years before it was recently removed a little more than 100 years ago.

 

[Willie T]

It will be a happy day for me when "The Passion Translation" is finally extended to include the Old Testament.

 

[Willie T]

Would you rather read the Bible (or any book) in the exact literal, word-for-word translation of the language originally used, even if doing so made it difficult (or sometimes nearly impossible) to grasp... or would you prefer to read something that explains what the author meant to convey to his readers?

 

[CoreIssue]

The KJ21 and NKJV do seem to avoid some of the bobos of many other more modern versions...

Both are rejected by the KJV crowd.

Both are KJV revisions, not new translations.

 

[farouk]

Both are rejected by the KJV crowd.

Both are KJV revisions, not new translations.

I think the NKJV was a more thoroughgoing revision than the KJ21, the publishers of which speak of an 'update' rather than a revision.

 

[CoreIssue]

I think the NKJV was a more thoroughgoing revision than the KJ21, the publishers of which speak of an 'update' rather than a revision.

That is covered in the videos.

They tried to update it while staying true to KJV.

I have that much but I saw places that some things are corrected in places where the errors were still where but more modern language.

The NKJV does replace Easter with Passover.

 

[Earburner]

No one in their right mind spouts such nonsense. Just A STRAW MAN ARGUMENT.

Go to OFFICIAL KING JAMES BIBLE ONLINE: AUTHORIZED KING JAMES VERSION (KJV) and compare the original KJV (1611) with the standard KJV of today. They are identical, other than spellings, punctuation, orthography etc. Another BOGUS ARGUMENT.

The date is incorrect. It should be 1885. And the Apocrypha was not recongized as Scripture by the translators. Another INCONSEQUENTIAL ARGUMENT.

Your irrational hatred for the KJV is plain to see. What that will do is send you into false doctrines.

Correct!
Words that you will never see in the KJV:
"The Antichrist"
"The Millennium"
"The Great Tribulation"
"The Rapture"
The numerical version "666"
.
Why?
Ans. The KJV was translated from the Textus Receptus Greek text, whereas the newer translations are translated from the Wescott and Hort Greek text.

 

[CoreIssue]

That’s cool . I do certainly like Dr Walter Martin . I like his videos from his radio show . I also like his books . The other new answer guy not so much .
Blessings
Bill

Dr. walter Martin video at DuckDuckGo

 

[CoreIssue]

Correct!
Words that you will never see in the KJV:
"The Antichrist"
"The Millennium"
"The Great Tribulation"
"The Rapture"
The numerical version "666"
.
Why?
Ans. The KJV was translated from the Textus Receptus Greek text, whereas the newer translations are translated from the Wescott and Hort Greek text.

666,
A nonsensical complaint

Nor do you see the word rapture in the NIV or NASB. But the Greek it stands for is in all of them.



KJV Matthew 24:21 - For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.

No millennium in the modern versions.

Strange that the once most defensive of the KJV refused to watch the videos.

 

[Laish]

Dr. walter Martin video at DuckDuckGo

CoreIdsue I have seen this one a while back along with others where Dr Martin has problems with Reformed theology. I disagree with him there . It dose not take away from the respect I have for the man and his calling. He had great insight. I love the work the man did even if I disagree with some of his opinions. His work was a blessing to many and myself.
Just a FYI I like to read and watch content that I disagree with or know little to nothing about more than the stuff I agree with . It’s not out a sense of superiority or anything similar. It’s about understanding something or respecting someone that you may even disagree with.
Blessings
Bill

 

[Laish]

There were no 'other books of the Bible' as far as Scripture. As far as other books that claimed inspiration, there were others. But they were not accepted.

The Apocryphal books were always doubted. And so rejected as inspired by God.

Stranger

Correct that’s what the word means
Here is what Webster’s has to say .
Apocrypha
1: writings or statements of dubious authenticity
2capitalized
a: books included in the Septuagint and Vulgate but excluded from the Jewish and Protestant canons of the Old Testament
Blessings
Bill

 

[Enoch111]

books included in the Septuagint...

Because the Septuagint was a corrupt Greek translation for the more liberal Jews living outside Palestine. Even its origin is legendary, rather than factual.

...and Vulgate

Only because the Catholic scholar Jerome was compelled against his better judgment to include the Apocrypha.

For Christians, the Lord Jesus Christ is the final authority. And He excluded the Apocrypha by referring to the Hebrews Scriptures as (1) the Law -- 5 books, (2) the Prophets -- 8 books, and (3) the Psalms -- 11 books, for a total of 24 books in the Hebrew Tanakh.

 

[Laish]

Because the Septuagint was a corrupt Greek translation for the more liberal Jews living outside Palestine. Even its origin is legendary, rather than factual.

Only because the Catholic scholar Jerome was compelled against his better judgment to include the Apocrypha.

For Christians, the Lord Jesus Christ is the final authority. And He excluded the Apocrypha by referring to the Hebrews Scriptures as (1) the Law -- 5 books, (2) the Prophets -- 8 books, and (3) the Psalms -- 11 books, for a total of 24 books in the Hebrew Tanakh.

You may also note that the Septuagint often differed depending where it was used . None of the fragments found in or around Jerusalem have the apocrypha.except those discovered along with the Dead Sea scrolls .
This also reflects why the orthodox and catholic Bibles differ .
Blessings
Bill

 

[Stranger]

And yet firmly in the list of books of the Bible and the 1611.

Not as Scripture. They were placed by themselves but not added to the Scripture. They were viewed as historical but not inspired.

So you see, this big bru-haha over the KJV today not being the same as the 1611 is nothing but a lie. If you have a KJV Bible, you have the 1611.

Stranger

 

[farouk]

You may also note that the Septuagint often differed depending where it was used . None of the fragments found in or around Jerusalem have the apocrypha.except those discovered along with the Dead Sea scrolls .
This also reflects why the orthodox and catholic Bibles differ .
Blessings
Bill

Quotations of the Septuagint in the New Testament provide interesting insights to how the Scriptures were given.

 

[CoreIssue]

Watch the videos. This was covered in greater detail and more authority than some of the ramblings here.