1611 or 1769. Which King James Bible do YOU read?

[Omegaman 3.0]

3 hours ago, Dennis1209 said:

Not that we needed it, but the Dead Sea Scrolls validate the authenticity and accuracy of the manuscripts and our KJV Bible.

Mostly, but there are some issues, at least in my mind, but they are not limited to the KJV. I have some suspicions about some of the verses in the New Testament, regarding Messianic prophecies in the Old Testament. As I had looked over those, some time in the past, I had noticed that if you look to what the New Testament quotes about the Old Testament, and then look to the Old Testament verses to see what they say, you sometimes find that they do not look alike. This was probqbly going back a decade, no more than that, that I was noticing this, and i finally figures out (I was late to that party) that the New Testament writers were often quoting the Greek Septuagint, not the Hebrew Scriptures.

Many of our Bibles use the Masoretic text as their source for translating the Old Testament. Jesus and the apostles, did not read or have access to the Masoretic text, that would not be around for about another 1000 years. It is my opinion, and that is all it is, the perhaps the Masoretes, for all the great and hard work they did as copyists, may have in there "Jesus is not the Messiah" bias and zeal, used a little creative license when writing down passages that appear Messianic and might tend to persuade some that Jesus was the Messiah.

The Septuagint, which pre-dates the Masoretic Text by about 1200 years (maybe more) did not know of Jesus of Nazareth and so, had no dog in that fight. The Septuagint, for those who do not know, is a translation of the Hebrew scriptures into Greek (Koine Greek, the same as the New Testament was written in). This translation was done by Jews and being as early as it was, they would have had access to more ancient copies of the Hebrew than we do, or than the Masoretes had access to.

Now here, my bias is showing, but I tend to trust Jewish scholars who were reading and understanding Hebrew, while it was still a living language, to understand that language and to communicate what they thought it meant into Koine Greek. These were Helenistic Jews, so they were Greek speaking - familiar with that language also.

My thinking is here (same bias) that if the authors of the New Testament were quoting the Septuagint, there is some sense in which they are implying that they believed the Septuagint was legitimate scripture, so that is sort of a stamp of approval. They did not quote the Masoretic text, so they did not give it their stamp of approval. Who do I trust more, the apostles and other New Testament writer who believes that Jesus was the Messiah, or the Maroretes who did not beleive Jesus is the Messiah? It is no contest for me.

All of that being said, to I trust the Old Testament in our Bibles, even if it does use the Masoretic text? Sure, I don't think it is perfect, but I think it is sufficient to use for instruction and doctrine, not having any significant errors. Even if it seems to tone done the Jesus as Messiah passages, we have the New Testament to verify that the Old Testament verifies Jesus as Messiah, and those guys had their eye-witness accounts that trump armchair interpretations 2000 years later, from people not fluent in languages nor immersed in the culture of the times.

It would be interesting to compare the Dead Sea scroll material with the Septuagint, but in any case, while the KJV is not my preferred version, I would be thrilled to have it as my only Bible, if there was nothing I though better to chose from, but I can think of not doctrine that is significant, or even insignificant ((if there is such a thing) that is not supported in the KJV (By the way, I do have a 1611 facsimile). If I have a reservation about it, it would probably me the long ending of Mark, I suspect that was not part of the original autograph of Mark.

While I do think the motives of the commission of the KJV are suspect, I do think the translators themselves were honest, well intentioned, scholarly, qualified, humble servants of God. I appreciate that they sought not to change the Bible, but to work from those who had gone before, and wanted in improve on already excellent work. That the recognized that better translations would come in the future, is to their credit, and so, like them, I am not a KJV only person, but I love to read it alongside other versions.

[Jedi4Yahweh]

1 hour ago, Omegaman 3.0 said:

Many of our Bibles use the Masoretic text as their source for translating the Old Testament. Jesus and the apostles, did not read or have access to the Masoretic text, that would not be around for about another 1000 years. It is my opinion, and that is all it is, the perhaps the Masoretes, for all the great and hard work they did as copyists, may have in there "Jesus is not the Messiah" bias and zeal, used a little creative license when writing down passages that appear Messianic and might tend to persuade some that Jesus was the Messiah.

The Septuagint, which pre-dates the Masoretic Text by about 1200 years (maybe more) did not know of Jesus of Nazareth and so, had no dog in that fight. The Septuagint, for those who do not know, is a translation of the Hebrew scriptures into Greek (Koine Greek, the same as the New Testament was written in). This translation was done by Jews and being as early as it was, they would have had access to more ancient copies of the Hebrew than we do, or than the Masoretes had access to.

 

Yes and here are two good examples:

Pslams (KJV/Masoretic text):

Sacrifice and offering thou didst not desire; mine ears hast thou opened: burnt offering and sin offering hast thou not required. Then said I, Lo, I come: in the volume of the book [it is] written of me, I delight to do thy will, O my God: yea, thy law [is] within my heart. - Psa 40:6-8 KJV

Pslams (LXX/Septuagint):

Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not; but a body hast thou prepared me: burnt offering and sin offering hast thou no pleasure. Then said I, Lo, I come: in the volume of the book [it is] written of me, I delight to do thy will, O my God: yea, thy law [is] within my heart. - Psa 40:6-8 LXX/Septuigent

Hebrews (quote):

Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me: In burnt offerings and [sacrifices] for sin thou hast had no pleasure. Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God. - Heb 10:5-7 KJV

----------

Habakkuk (KJV)

For the vision [is] yet for an appointed time, but at the end it shall speak, and not lie: though it tarry, wait for it; because it will surely come, it will not tarry.  - Hab 2:3 KJV

Habbkkuk (LXX)

For the vision [is] yet for a time, and it shall shoot forth at the end, and not in vain: though he should tarry, wait for him; for he will surely come, and will not tarry. - Hab 2:3-4 LXX

Hebrews (quote):

For yet a little while, and he that shall come will come, and will not tarry. . - Heb 10:37 KJV

These are just a few examples, but there are many examples where the NT quotes of OT scriptures do not line up with OT mesocratic text, but in all cases lines up directly with the Septuagint text.

Edited October 27, 2022 by Jedi4Yahweh

[ayin jade]

6 hours ago, Dennis1209 said:

 A very thought-provoking subject, Jayne. I’ll try to do something difficult for me and stay on topic. 😊

There is a 99% chance everyone owns and uses the 1769 translation for apparent reasons; it’s more understandable and readable than the original 1611 by comparison. Responding to your question, I went through the very first dozen pages of my KJV Bibles (those pages that few seldom read). I was amazed that some of my KJV Bibles are printed in “China.” But that was not what I was searching for.

In the copyright, forward, editing, etc., nothing is mentioned as a 1769 translation of the 1611 translation (interesting).

I want to mention one thing in general that pertains to any translation—singing in harmony off the same sheet of music. How often from the pulpit with a guest speaker or your paster at another church? Has the speaker said, “turn to such and such verse and follow along with me?” You cannot follow along because he is reading, and you are hearing something different than what you are reading. It is babel in my head, and it is probably just me.

For me, the accuracy of the translation trumps archaic language, ease of flow, readability, and modern language (thee, Thou's, thy, etc.). I do love Old English, though! Doest thou?

Without delving into the massive task of the history of our translations of the various Bibles. The Textus Receptus (Majority Text) was the most accepted by the 2^nd, 3^rd, 15^th, 16^th, and 17th-century churches, save the RCC.

The history of how we got our Bible(s) (the majority and minority copies of texts, Geneva, Bishop’s, 1611, 1769, et al.) is fascinating. I’ll insert a standalone opinion at this point. Since the 19^th century, I think the best-selling Book of all time was turned into a cash cow with 300+ English translations and versions.

The following is something I find thought-provoking and exciting for the generation in which we live. As the Lord foretold, we and this generation witnessed the rebirth of Israel in a single day (May 14, 1948). As predicted, we witnessed Israel taking back the mountains of Israel and control of Jerusalem again (1967 Six-Day War).

Isaiah 29:4 (KJV) And thou shalt be brought down, and shalt speak out of the ground, and thy speech shall be low out of the dust, and thy voice shall be, as of one that hath a familiar spirit, out of the ground, and thy speech shall whisper out of the dust.

Many respected biblical scholars think the above verse references the discovery of the Qumran Dead Sea Scrolls in 1946. Most scholars agree these scrolls were written in the 2^nd or 3^rd centuries B.C. Historically that was about the same time as the translation of the LXX. The Dead Sea Scrolls predate all source material used for our Bibles.

Not that we needed it, but the Dead Sea Scrolls validate the authenticity and accuracy of the manuscripts and our KJV Bible.

Several Bibles have been revised and eliminated many inserted italics in our Bibles. The KJV Bible was not revised to reflect those changes. However, all my modern copies of the KJV are footnoted with any corrections and additions.

I hope I didn’t go off-topic too awful bad.  😊

I have bought cheap bibles at the dollar store to give away. They were made in china. I have wondered if the chinese altered the bibles. The print is too tiny for me so I havent read them. It wouldnt surprise me if china did change the words just to mess with us americans and because of their anti God stance.

[ayin jade]

22 hours ago, David1701 said:

The KJV only included the apocrypha because King James insisted.  The translators gave 15 reasons for not including it, if I recall correctly.  Although they included it, they separated it from the inspired OT books and slapped "Apocrypha" on every page, so that people would know not to treat it as inspired.

If you like the Septuagint, what do you think of Psalm 151 (a serious question)?

I used to be able to find it online, with a good comparison to the kjv, but that site is gone. I also used to have it on esword but apparently did not add it again when I updated the software. The only online version I found does not list psalm 151. From memory of reading it on that really nice website, I recall that it seemed unfinished. I could see why it was not among the masorectic text.

Really need to find the lxx again.

[David1701]

22 hours ago, Jedi4Yahweh said:

Martin Luther who pushed for the the 15 books of the apocrypha removed from the bible also wanted Hebrews, James, Jude, Daniel, and Revelation removed as well, should we consider those books as uninspired as well?  These books where considered inspired writings up until the 1800's and were found in most bibles.

The apocrypha was not considered to be inspired by Protestants.  It was the Roman Catholics and so-called Orthodox who considered (and still consider) them to be inspired.

Some of the teaching in them is crazy and definitely not from God.

[Jedi4Yahweh]

Just now, David1701 said:

The apocrypha was not considered to be inspired by Protestants.  It was the Roman Catholics and so-called Orthodox who considered (and still consider) them to be inspired.

Some of the teaching in them is crazy and definitely not from God.

They apocrypha were in the Septuagint text long before there was such thing as the RCC. The Septuagint predates Christ by a several hundred years.  Also, the apocrypha books were also found in dead sea scrolls.  

[David1701]

58 minutes ago, ayin jade said:

I used to be able to find it online, with a good comparison to the kjv, but that site is gone. I also used to have it on esword but apparently did not add it again when I updated the software. The only online version I found does not list psalm 151. From memory of reading it on that really nice website, I recall that it seemed unfinished. I could see why it was not among the masorectic text.

Really need to find the lxx again.

I don't have an electronic version of Psalm 151; however, it's short and I do have a printed Septuagint, so here is Psalm 151...

1 I was small among my brothers, and youngest in my father's house: I tended my father's sheep.

2 My hands formed a musical instrument, and my fingers tuned a psaltery.

3 And who shall tell my Lord? The Lord Himsef, He Himself hears.

4 He sent forth his angel, and took me from my father's sheep, and He anointed me with the oil of His anointing.

5 My brothers were handsome and tall; but the Lord did not take pleasure in them.

6 I went forth to meet the Philistine; and he cursed me by his idols.

7 But I drew his own sword, and beheaded him, and removed the reproach from the children of Israel.

 

I don't know if David wrote this; but, if he did, then it must have been an uninspired psalm... It just does not have the quality of any of the preceding psalms.

[David1701]

14 minutes ago, Jedi4Yahweh said:

They apocrypha were in the Septuagint text long before there was such thing as the RCC. The Septuagint predates Christ by a several hundred years.  Also, the apocrypha books were also found in dead sea scrolls.  

The dating of the original Septuagint is debated.  In any case, the apocryphal books undermine themselves, although 1 Maccabees is quite useful as a history book.

[Jedi4Yahweh]

14 minutes ago, David1701 said:

I don't have an electronic version of Psalm 151; however, it's short and I do have a printed Septuagint, so here is Psalm 151...

1 I was small among my brothers, and youngest in my father's house: I tended my father's sheep.

2 My hands formed a musical instrument, and my fingers tuned a psaltery.

3 And who shall tell my Lord? The Lord Himsef, He Himself hears.

4 He sent forth his angel, and took me from my father's sheep, and He anointed me with the oil of His anointing.

5 My brothers were handsome and tall; but the Lord did not take pleasure in them.

6 I went forth to meet the Philistine; and he cursed me by his idols.

7 But I drew his own sword, and beheaded him, and removed the reproach from the children of Israel.

 

I don't know if David wrote this; but, if he did, then it must have been an uninspired psalm... It just does not have the quality of any of the preceding psalms.

Psalms were not written in chronological order and was written over hundreds of years to include many authors: David, Asaph, the Sons of Korah, Solomon, Heman, Ethan, Moses, and other unknown authors. 

Edited October 27, 2022 by Jedi4Yahweh

[David1701]

Just now, Jedi4Yahweh said:

Psalms where was not written in chronological order and was written over hundreds of years to include many authors: David, Asaph, the Sons of Korah, Solomon, Heman, Ethan, Moses, and other unknown authors. 

I didn't say that the Psalms were in chronological order, nor that they only had one author.