The Difference Between KJV And More Modern Translations

[MarkRohfrietsch]

i prefer the kjv .the older ,now less used words have far more depth and scope of meaning then their contemporary counterparts .
but im not kjv "only"
i find the kjv is the best foundational bible to read and others are merely good accompaniment for study & reference.

The Psalms are truly beautiful from the KJV; when sung, more so.

 

[Alithis]

The Psalms are truly beautiful from the KJV; when sung, more so.

to that

 

[pescador]

pescador greetings

Are you basing your statements of "the oldest and best sources available" on what you have read, or on your actual study of these older and better manuscripts?

Terry

On what I have read. I am not a biblical scholar but believe the great majority of academics who are. There is far more basis for believing them than the few who claim to have a contrary opinion (not facts).

 

[pescador]

Oldest age does not necessarily mean best.

I disagree. The oldest texts are those that are closest in age to the original "source" texts and therefore most like them. By definition, later texts are copies of the older texts and may contain errors and/or revisions.

 

[pescador]

While you hear most people saying that the new translations are based on the oldest manuscripts this may have no substance.

C.J. Ellicott was the chairman of the Revised Version, the one all new translations are based on. In 1882, a year after the Revised Version New Testament came out, Ellicott and another committee member published a short pamphlet in defense of their new revision. The new revision was not well received and they felt it necessary to attempt to defend it. In this pamphlet Ellicott quoted Hort, the man most responsible for the revised version, from the Quarterly Review, No. 304. p. 313. Hort made the statement the Authorized Version, KJB, was based on manuscripts as old as, or older than any existing manuscript, which would have
included the Codex Vaticanus, and the Codex Sinaticus.

There are several problems with what you're saying. You say that the Revised Version is "the one all new translations are based on". That's not true. For example the NET translation was created directly from the oldest and best manuscripts available and explicitly states that it is not based on earlier translations. There are others like this, but I don't want to research which ones they are.

You said "Hort made the statement the Authorized Version, KJB, was based on manuscripts as old as, or older than any existing manuscript, which would have included the Codex Vaticanus, and the Codex Sinaticus." One man's statement is just that: one man's statement. There is more evidence to the contrary than C.J. Ellicott 's quoting of Hort. I believe the contrary evidence which is based on more and better scholarship.

 

[pescador]

Greetings Saints , the King Iames version of the Bishop's & William Tyndale translations . Written about 180 years BEFORE the " J " was added to the English alphabet . Over 7,000 errors in the Sacred name alone .
Index of 100+ Versions of the Scriptures

It was translated out of the original tongues and with previous translations, including that of William Tyndale, diligently compared and revised. In the preface of the 1611 edition, the translators stated that it was not their purpose to make a new translation but to make a good one better. It is a revision of the Bishop's Bible of 1568.

It was the desire of the translators to make God's holy Truth more and more known unto the people, even though they may be maligned by those religious persons who would keep the people in ignorance and darkness concerning it. It was presented to King James I when completed in 1611. It has been the standard English translation for almost four hundred years.

It is noted for the quality of translation and the majesty of style. The translators were committed to producing an English Bible that would be a precise translation and by no means a paraphrase or broadly approximate rendering. The scholars were fully familiar with the original languages of the Bible and especially gifted in their use of their native English. Because of their reverence for God and His Word, only a principle of utmost accuracy in their translation could be accepted. Appreciating the intrinsic beauty of divine revelation, they disciplined their talents to render well-chosen English words of their time as well as a graceful, often musical, arrangement of language.

There have been many publishers, many editions, and various features for this version.

[Tyndale House, Cambridge, United Kingdom]
King James Version (Authorized Version)

When William Tyndale could not receive support in England to translate the Bible into English, he went to Germany, never to return. Here he dodged Roman Catholic authorities. In 1525, he started printing his New Testament in Cologne. When he was betrayed, he fled to Worms and continued his work. The first completed New Testament in English appeared early in 1526(?). When copies reached England, any that could be found by authorities were burned at St. Paul's Cross.

After losing money, copies, and time in a shipwreck, he started over again. Having completed the Pentateuch, he began printing it in Antwerp in 1530. In the following year, he translated Jonah and revised Genesis. In 1534 and 1535, he made revisions to the New Testament.

He was kidnapped by Antwerp authorities and imprisoned. On orders of papal authorities, requests for his release were denied. In 1536, he was executed at the stake. He did not complete the translation of the Old Testament.

The Old Testament (Pentateuch only) version being used was published by Southern Illinois University Press in 1967. "Being a verbatim reprint of the edition of M.CCCCC.XXX [1530]. Compared with Tyndale's Genesis of 1534, and the Pentateuch in the Vulgate, Luther, and Matthew's Bible, with various collations and prolegomena." [Prolegomena: a treatise serving as a preface or introduction to a book. (The Random House Dictionary of the English Language. Page 1547.)]

The language and spelling of the day have been retained.

Yale University Press (1989)

[University of Texas at Arlington Library, Arlington, Texas] (Pentateuch)
[Dallas Public Library, Dallas, Texas] (New Covenant)
William Tindale Translation

Here's my Sword for he last 12 years .

There are four purposes for this translation:

To restore the Name of the Almighty to its rightful place in the text;
To be recognizably Messianic in that it affirms the Hebraic roots of the Messianic belief;
To restore the meaning to so many words which have become popular to use, but do not accurately reflect the meaning of the original, e.g., church, glory, holy, sacrifice, soul;
To be as far as possible a literal translation, wherever possible rendering key words uniformly.
The titles of the books are transliterations of the names of the books of the Old Covenant and, where appropriate, likewise, of those of the New covenant. The order of the Old Covenant is the traditional Hebraic order of the Tanakh.

The Old Covenant is based on the Massoretic Hebrew and Aramaic text, according to the 1937 edition of Kittel's Biblia Hebraica. The New Covenant is based on the Textus Receptus, being modified with the use of such other texts as the Nestle-Aland and Shem Tob, as seemed appropriate.

The Institute for Scriptural Research (ISR), located in the Republic of South Africa, uses the terms Pre-Messianic Scriptures for the Old Covenant and Messianic Scriptures for the New Covenant.

Institute for Scriptural Research (1998)

[Tyndale House, Cambridge, United Kingdom]
The Scriptures (ISR)

1611 KING JAMES BIBLE (1611 BIBLE)

It's not clear which translation is your "sword". Tyndale's translation? The King James Translation?

 

[pescador]

The Psalms are truly beautiful from the KJV; when sung, more so.

That may be so. There is no question that the language of the KJV is beautiful but...

I think most people on this forum are most interested in the content and meaning of the original Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic -- the closest approximation to God's word -- than in the beauty of the received language.

IMHO this is a fundamental problem with the KJV. People "feel religious" while reading or hearing it, but that feeling doesn't necessarily correspond with the understanding of the message of God's truth.

Poetry is beautiful but it's not as effective a communicator as ordinary language. If you don't believe me speak poetry in your daily life.

"God is not the author of confusion."

 

[jbearnolimits]

I disagree. The oldest texts are those that are closest in age to the original "source" texts and therefore most like them. By definition, later texts are copies of the older texts and may contain errors and/or revisions.

Have you ever played telephone? The story changes the further down the line you go. This is the common thing that people point out about this subject.

However, if you write down the story and pass it down it remains the same. Later copies are as good as the original since they are easily tested along the way.

Seeing as how the texts for the KJV are accurate in their content they should be trusted more so than other documents which are not as accurate. Thus older is not always the most accurate.

For example, if I write down "the color of the cat is brown." and tell people to pass it along someone may write "the color of the cat is blue." Then someone looks at the first document and throws the false one in a cave somewhere and writes "the color of the cat is brown."

And so the next person writes "the color of the cat is brown." and it continues.

Now the documents written that the KJV was translated from have been tested for accuracy many hundreds of years. The story fits and the wording matches. There are no errors or contradictions. Even though many have tried to point them out (if you search for them online try searching for the answers too, I can almost bet you that there is an answer that doesn't involve saying the KJV is wrong).

Other translations don't seem to be able to make this claim. And it is most likely because the documents they were translated from were the ones thrown in a cave somewhere and discarded.

If the Bible is the word of God and if God is perfect then the Bible must also be. But if the Bible is not the word of God, then God has not spoken through men and our faith is in vain. You see how tricky Satan is? If he slides a fake bible in that contains much of the content as the other, yet has a few problems he can shake the faith and kill those weakened by it.

The fact that they all contain some of the same information is why I don't mind using them all. But the fact that not all of it is the same tells me that I have to trust the KJV where they differ.

 

[ron4shua]

My Dear Brother pescador , the ISR the HALLELUYAH.COM is a veration of the ISR both the same translation . The ISR is a " Top shelf " spendy book , the HELLELUYAH is more Hebrew names moderately priced softback to leather large print & free to those qualifying , sparse income . I USED linux for years & a ( back orifice a windows bug ) has eaten my lunch , dinner & midnight snack . I'm using my wife's laptop . The copy of E-Sword installed had 57 versions , 9 versions of the KJV including the AV 1611 .
I'm blessed with four Sacred Name Versions & I'll never go back to looking at the WORD " god " , thank you YAHshua . The NIV has cut many pagan influences from it's latest release . The NKJV is much more " Christen " now it cleaned up some of it's corruption . I have three literals , my favorite flavor is Youngs . My Scofield has not been opened in fifteen years , picked up to move or dust , wished I could get my money back .

Here's my Sword for he last 12 years .

There are four purposes for this translation:

To restore the Name of the Almighty to its rightful place in the text;
To be recognizably Messianic in that it affirms the Hebraic roots of the Messianic belief;
To restore the meaning to so many words which have become popular to use, but do not accurately reflect the meaning of the original, e.g., church, glory, holy, sacrifice, soul;
To be as far as possible a literal translation, wherever possible rendering key words uniformly.
The titles of the books are transliterations of the names of the books of the Old Covenant and, where appropriate, likewise, of those of the New covenant. The order of the Old Covenant is the traditional Hebraic order of the Tanakh.

The Old Covenant is based on the Massoretic Hebrew and Aramaic text, according to the 1937 edition of Kittel's Biblia Hebraica. The New Covenant is based on the Textus Receptus, being modified with the use of such other texts as the Nestle-Aland and Shem Tob, as seemed appropriate.

The Institute for Scriptural Research (ISR), located in the Republic of South Africa, uses the terms Pre-Messianic Scriptures for the Old Covenant and Messianic Scriptures for the New Covenant.

Institute for Scriptural Research (1998)

[Tyndale House, Cambridge, United Kingdom]
The Scriptures (ISR)

" hay mikey , try it you'll like it " HaHa .

Blessings ron .

 

[Alithis]

well at times I enjoy reading the greek-english interlinear .
the words not yet transliterated allow for a more thoughtful consideration of whats being said.
However true comprehension is given by God alone and he delights when we do not consider ourselves wise but rather seek Him for his wisdom to his glory .Then by his Spirit understanding comes and we can take no credit for it.
so while some translations range from very good to honestly dubious ..the worse scenario is when folks base their understanding solely on their own intellectual ability.
...thus thinking ourselves wise we become fools.

the greatest evidence we are headed down a road of such folly is when there is a lack of application of Godliness and we become hearers ,gathering knowledge but no longer doers...when that happens it shows we have fully missed understanding any of it at all.

 

[BryanW92]

Then someone looks at the first document and throws the false one in a cave somewhere

...
Other translations don't seem to be able to make this claim. And it is most likely because the documents they were translated from were the ones thrown in a cave somewhere and discarded.

You don't throw the book that is wrong in a cave carefully preserved in jars. You throw it in the trash pile. Ever hear of something called "document preservation"? We still do it today. Guess where we store things? In cave-like structures. You store the things that you want to preserve and not the trash. Do you archive your kitchen trash or your family photographs?

 

[thankfulttt]

There are several problems with what you're saying. You say that the Revised Version is "the one all new translations are based on". That's not true. For example the NET translation was created directly from the oldest and best manuscripts available and explicitly states that it is not based on earlier translations. There are others like this, but I don't want to research which ones they are.

When you study the new translations the facts show that they all follow the same script. This is a fact, which cannot be denied by a mere denial. They are all based on the Codex Vaticanus and the Codex Sinaiticus. There of course is the exception to every rule, but whenever the Codex Vaticanus and the Codex Sinaiticus contrast with the Received Text they always follow these two Alexandrian Manuscripts.

You said "Hort made the statement the Authorized Version, KJB, was based on manuscripts as old as, or older than any existing manuscript, which would have included the Codex Vaticanus, and the Codex Sinaticus." One man's statement is just that: one man's statement. There is more evidence to the contrary than C.J. Ellicott 's quoting of Hort. I believe the contrary evidence which is based on more and better scholarship.

OK. You are right one man's opinion is only that. I would suggest that some personal examination of these two manuscripts is in order.

God bless, Terry

 

[Alithis]

“Some people like to read their Bibles in the Hebrew; some like to read it in the Greek; I like to ready it in the Holy Spirit.”

-Smith Wigglesworth