King James Version Bible vs. Modern English Bibles

[Guest Butero]

13 minutes ago, angels4u said:

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 ..

I bought a few translations to look for omissions or changes, and that was one of them.  I only use the 1611 KJV Bible with old English spelling or the Authorized KJV Bible for reading or study.  I just know it is a nice leather bound NKJV, and the information about the manuscripts was worth the price I paid for it.  

[Guest Butero]

7 minutes ago, GandalfTheWise said:

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.

 

The so-called oldest manuscripts were only older because they were preserved in a cave.  The T.R. was what was in use.  It is funny how you only mention a single omission when there are many more and in those cases, they appear in the majority of manuscripts.  Those so-called oldest ones don't contain most of the last chapter of Mark.  I would also point out that the missing verses were established canon, so if they don't belong, the canon is worthless.

[Dennis1209]

23 minutes ago, angels4u said:

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 ..

Personally speaking, I only use the 1611 AV mainly for consistency and what I was brought up with. I'm not knocking other translations. I really like the old Scofield study system. and I own a number of other 1611 editions with different study commentaries.  

[angels4u]

13 minutes ago, GandalfTheWise said:

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.

 

Quote

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.

The reason I like the NKJV is that I learned so much scripture from that translation and "Yes" I'm not against reading other translations , that's where we have to be aware of what it's saying, personally, I listen to the ESV online (sometimes) I don't own a ESV Bible, I do know that many people very much like the NA version,where does USB and TR stands for?

I'm not KJV only as God can use all translations to get us to understand things and He is giving us awareness through the Holy Spirit. I trust God with all translations except a few..

 

 

[Guest Butero]

2 minutes ago, Dennis1209 said:

Personally speaking, I only use the 1611 AV mainly for consistency and what I was brought up with. I'm not knocking other translations. I really like the old Scofield study system. and I own a number of other 1611 editions with different study commentaries.  

I love my 1611 Edition with the old English spelling and the Psalm introductions, though it is harder to read.

[angels4u]

4 minutes ago, Dennis1209 said:

Personally speaking, I only use the 1611 AV mainly for consistency and what I was brought up with. I'm not knocking other translations. I really like the old Scofield study system. and I own a number of other 1611 editions with different study commentaries.  

Where does AV stands for?

Sorry,I don't know all those things .

[Dennis1209]

1 hour 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.  

With study comes knowledge. The Septuagint was transcribed about 300 B.C. in Alexandra, Egypt, by 70-72 of the best Jewish minds of the time. For some reason for a long time, I had pictured in my mind Jesus and the Apostles walking around with a copy of the Septuagint, or had their own personal copies of some hand written scrolls of some or all of the Old Testament. How naive could I be?

Anyway come to learn, just a handwritten scroll copy of one Book of the Old Testament was beyond most peoples affordability. The Old Testament scriptures were constantly read in the synagogue's and they memorized them. That's my current understanding at the present anyway.

Edited February 14, 2018 by Dennis1209

[Dennis1209]

11 minutes ago, angels4u said:

Where does AV stands for?

Sorry,I don't know all those things .

Authorized version.

[GandalfTheWise]

44 minutes ago, angels4u said:

The reason I like the NKJV is that I learned so much scripture from that translation and "Yes" I'm not against reading other translations , that's where we have to be aware of what it's saying, personally, I listen to the ESV online (sometimes) I don't own a ESV Bible, I do know that many people very much like the NA version,where does USB and TR stands for?

I'm not KJV only as God can use all translations to get us to understand things and He is giving us awareness through the Holy Spirit. I trust God with all translations except a few..

  I like the KJV.  My first bible was an old KJV Schofield Reference Bible.  I still have my old Strong's concordance sitting around as well though I haven't used it in years. 

NA is Nestle-Aland, UBS (typo in post) United Bible Societies, and TR is Textus Receptus.  These are various Greek versions using different readings and footnotes with references about which manuscripts various readings are found in.

I've known some Christians over the years that have been using the same physical Bible and version for decades, and its been a source of spiritual growth, wisdom, and blessing for them.  For myself, I've found that reading a number of different translations and different languages allows me to read scripture through the works of a wide range of Christian scholars who've literally dedicated their lives to studying the Bible.  Seeing the same passages through the eyes of many different Christians helps me focus on the meaning and message.  God made us all different and different styles of the spiritual disciplines work better for different people.   The important thing is that our devotional reading and study help us learn more about God and help us better walk more closely with Him.    

[Guest Butero]

Here is the biggest thing to me about the modern translations.  We are told that the 66 books of the canon are God's Word.  I have heard that all of my life, and I believe it.  Then we have these people come along and they discover manuscripts that leave out portions of the text that I was told was canon, and they go with them in creating modern English translations.  They pick and choose which of these verses to leave and which to remove.  They all claim to be using the Egyptian and Alexandrian text as their basis, yet some will insert a verse another leaves out.  In at least one, they add a line to one of the Psalms.  I thought we had a closed canon.  I guess not, at least for those who promote the new translations, NKJV excluded from this criticism.  

I just got through talking with someone that thought this was good, because with new discoveries, we find we can come up with a better and more reliable Bible.  He also believes that books like Enoch should be in the Bible, and thinks those who created the canon were wrong to leave it out.  With a closed canon, you can't consider adding it, but if we are ok with the modern English translations adding or taking away, he may have a point.  What they are doing is no different than me deciding that Rest of Esther should be part of the canon, and adding it to the end of Esther.  I enjoyed reading Ecclesiasticus, so how about making a Bible that places that after Proverbs since it is a book of wisdom and the canon is no longer closed and settled?  If I don't like another book, why not remove it?  Do we really need Song of Solomon?  Why not replace it with Wisdom of Solomon?  If anyone ever convinced me I was the one in the wrong, I would have to consider making any changes to the canon is alright, provided we believe a book should be included or left out.  

One of my favorite Apocryphal books is Apocalypse of Paul.  It tells of his being given a chance to visit hell, and what he saw.  Add that to what we know about hell from the closed canon, and it will give you some serious ammunition to really scare people.  Why not add that to the new and better canon?  There is the Epistle of Paul to the Laodiceans.  It is even mentioned in the Bible.  I have read it, and it seems to go hand in hand with his other epistles.  Why not add it to the canon?  I have no idea why others haven't tried using this argument to open the closed canon, since we have already done that with the modern English translations.  

You either believe the canon has meaning or you don't.  If you don't, just admit it, because when you come out and defend adding verses and leaving verses out, that is what you are telling everybody.