King James Version Bible vs. Modern English Bibles

[angels4u]

2 minutes ago, Butero said:

That is what turned me from new translations.  At least the NKJV is complete.

The NKJV is my favorite which I used as long as I'm a Christian,but now and then I listen to the ESV online

[angels4u]

1 minute ago, Davida said:

Obviously that is not the problem with the translations that they are simply "modern" . 

They are some very bad translations out there, which translation were we really talking about?

[Guest Butero]

9 minutes ago, angels4u said:

The NKJV is my favorite which I used as long as I'm a Christian,but now and then I listen to the ESV online

I paid about $76 for the KJV Bible on cd several years ago, and listen to it in the truck.  This morning I was listening to Ruth.  I started back in Genesis in January.  I converted them to mp3 files because cds get worn out and will skip or stick at times if you keep using them repeatedly.  

I also listen to books online.  I just paid 99 cents for the rights to "Pilgrim's Progress" from the Windows Store and listened to that the other week.  I had read it twice, but it is one of my favorite books.  

Nearly every modern English translation leaves verses out, and some add to the text in one of the Psalms.  The NKJV doesn't do that, but there are slight variations in the text that alter things a little.  One such example was pointed out to me recently, but I don't remember what it was off hand.  

What started me looking into the translation issue was I had a Parallel Bible with the KJV on one side and the NIV on the other, and I noticed many verses left out or discredited.  After looking into the matter, I found this took place in most translations.  I bought a few to compare them.  The ESV is one of them.  I have a NKJV Bible, and it actually tells you in the front that some translations leave out certain verses because they begin with the Egyptian and Alexandrian Text rather than the Textus Receptus.  Up until then, people had been lying to me and claiming the verses left out were not included in the majority of the manuscripts, but that was false. 

Then there is the copywrite matter.  In order to get a copywrite, each translation must differ from what is out there, so some will actually go ahead and leave some of those verses in but leave others out to be different.  Some will use the 3rd or 4th best word in the definition to differ.  In translations to other languages, at least you don't have all of this competition to make money off the Bible, so you have less error.  I just choose to stay with the KJV Bible because I trust it.  

[angels4u]

11 minutes ago, Butero said:

I paid about $76 for the KJV Bible on cd several years ago, and listen to it in the truck.  This morning I was listening to Ruth.  I started back in Genesis in January.  I converted them to mp3 files because cds get worn out and will skip or stick at times if you keep using them repeatedly.  

I also listen to books online.  I just paid 99 cents for the rights to "Pilgrim's Progress" from the Windows Store and listened to that the other week.  I had read it twice, but it is one of my favorite books.  

Nearly every modern English translation leaves verses out, and some add to the text in one of the Psalms.  The NKJV doesn't do that, but there are slight variations in the text that alter things a little.  One such example was pointed out to me recently, but I don't remember what it was off hand.  

What started me looking into the translation issue was I had a Parallel Bible with the KJV on one side and the NIV on the other, and I noticed many verses left out or discredited.  After looking into the matter, I found this took place in most translations.  I bought a few to compare them.  The ESV is one of them.  I have a NKJV Bible, and it actually tells you in the front that some translations leave out certain verses because they begin with the Egyptian and Alexandrian Text rather than the Textus Receptus.  Up until then, people had been lying to me and claiming the verses left out were not included in the majority of the manuscripts, but that was false. 

Then there is the copywrite matter.  In order to get a copywrite, each translation must differ from what is out there, so some will actually go ahead and leave some of those verses in but leave others out to be different.  Some will use the 3rd or 4th best word in the definition to differ.  In translations to other languages, at least you don't have all of this competition to make money off the Bible, so you have less error.  I just choose to stay with the KJV Bible because I trust it.  

I did read Pilgrims Progress many years and also seen the video ,the story is so very much for today too as we all have to make the choice of which road we take..

I think I stick with my NKJV ,it's old and duck taped together , I might have to buy a new one as some pages are taped back together in the Bible too but I can't part with all my notes from over the years ....

[Dennis1209]

46 minutes ago, angels4u said:

I didn't know if leaves versus out?

Just as one quick example; Mark 16: 9-20 is left out of many revisionist Bibles. Due to they were not part of the two oldest manuscripts. Older is not always more accurate or better.

[Guest Butero]

1 minute ago, angels4u said:

I did read Pilgrims Progress many years and also seen the video ,the story is so very much for today too as we all have to make the choice of which road we take..

I think I stick with my NKJV ,it's old and duck taped together , I might have to buy a new one as some pages are taped back together in the Bible too but I can't part with all my notes from over the years ....

I don't think the one I bought for comparisons was that high.  I think I bought it at a Wal-Mart at a pretty reasonable price.  I do think the NKJV was an honest attempt to get it right.  I can't prove that to be the case, but it appears that way, and it does include all the verses in the canon.  Based on that, when I come across people that absolutely won't read the KJV Bible because they find it too difficult, I recommend the NKJV above the others out there.  It appears to be the best of the modern translations.  I am just a stickler for absolute accuracy, and I trust the Authorized KJV Bible.  

"Pilgrim's Progress" was not in modern English.  If you could understand that, I would think the KJV Bible wouldn't be that hard either.  I actually think it helped me become a better reader.  I only have a GED.  I am not a college graduate or anything, but I read a lot, and I try to keep learning.  I have done some of those tests they give you to see how far you went in school and came out with them thinking I had a Bachelor's Degree and I scored 144 on an IQ test.  I really think reading the KJV Bible at least played a part in that.  

[Guest Butero]

1 minute ago, Dennis1209 said:

Just as one quick example; Mark 16: 9-20 is left out of many revisionist Bibles. Due to they were not part of the two oldest manuscripts. Older is not always more accurate or better.

There is something else to consider about the age.  They were only older because they were not being used, but were preserved in a cave.  The manuscripts in use were naturally not as old because the paper would deteriorate, and they had to copy them, just like you have to replace a worn out Bible with a new one.  

[Dennis1209]

9 minutes ago, Butero said:

There is something else to consider about the age.  They were only older because they were not being used, but were preserved in a cave.  The manuscripts in use were naturally not as old because the paper would deteriorate, and they had to copy them, just like you have to replace a worn out Bible with a new one.  

Exactly right. But I would have had to use two sentences to include that.

I'm rationing words today to get less criticism.

Edited February 14, 2018 by Dennis1209

[angels4u]

I'm just wondering if you use a study NKJV and which one?

I have the Ryrie NKJV  study Bible, I love this Bible but do not always agree with the notes ..

[GandalfTheWise]

50 minutes ago, angels4u said:

I didn't know if leaves versus out?

There are a few passages in the NT which do not occur in the oldest manuscripts.  Newer translations usually either put these in brackets or put them in footnotes.   There are also some passages (e.g. I John 5:7) which occur in a particular form only in a handful of very late manuscripts.

7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.  I John 5:7-8 AV

7 For there are three that testify: 8 the Spirit and the water and the blood; and these three agree.  I John 5:7-8 ESV

There are only a handful of very late manuscripts which have the form of I John 5:7 that shows up in the TR (and then the KJV).  It is interesting that quotations from early church fathers of I John 5:7 do not reflect the TR version.  The absence of the use of this verse (with its strong Trinitarian content) during the early defense of the Trinity by the church fathers suggests that this verse was likely added later.  

The KJV-only argument for a case like this basically runs something like "the vast majority of manuscripts are corrupt and God miraculously restored the correct reading just in time for it to appear in the TR."  Thus, they would say that versions like the ESV are leaving out something that God intended to be there even though the vast majority of existing manuscripts do not have I John 5:7 in that form.   The mainstream of evangelical Christian scholarship looks at something like this and decides that it is unlikely that the TR reading for I John 5:7 was the original and that the majority of manuscripts and quotations of the verse by the early church fathers have a strong agreement with each other.  This is why versions like the ESV have this form of the verse.

The bottom line is the KJV-only adherents have decided on faith that all readings and verses in the KJV (and its underlying TR and Hebrew texts) are the correct ones that all translations must be measured against.  In contrast, mainstream evangelical Christian scholars look at a variety of manuscripts, early translations into other languages (e.g. Latin, Syriac, Gothic, Coptic), quotations and paraphrases of verses in the writings of early church fathers and in various devotional and liturgical readings to try determine on a passage by passage basis which is the most likely reading of the originals.  The scholarship underlying the versions such as the ESV looks at the evidence and decides that the majority of readings most likely reflect the original reading.

One's choice on this matter comes down to this:  Does one accept on the basis of faith that the KJV (and TR for the NT) is the perfect and complete Word of God and that all variations from it are corruptions and errors?  Or does one go with the majority of evangelical denominations, congregations, and Christian scholars who look to the testimony and evidence across a range of manuscripts and traditions for the strongest and most credible witness to the meaning and wording of each individual passage?

As is probably obvious from my posts, but I'll state it clearly, I fit into the latter view.  I've read the Bible through in several English versions, one Spanish version, and a couple Greek versions (NA27, USB4, and TR).  I'm self-taught in Greek (and started Hebrew this year).  If I thought I saw any conspiracies or plots to suppress the real Word of God, I'd have called it out.  I've got one friend who has spent a 30 year career studying NT manuscripts that I've bounced many a question off of.   I'm satisfied that mainstream evangelical textual scholarship is being done in a responsible and spiritual manner.  I'm satisfied that translations are being done in an accurate and responsible manner.   I think most of the mainstream English translations are fine for devotional use and daily reading.  I do recommend staying clear of explicitly biased versions such as the JW NWT and some paraphrases.  I think that one should use a variety of English translations when doing in-depth study.  The majority of mature Christians (whose lives I've seen up close and personal for many years and decades) that I respect and whose opinions I value hold a similar view.