Are modern Bible translations as good as the old ones? KJV versus ESV versus NKJV

[createdtoworship]

The NASB is probably the most accurate but quite frankly; if you're reading the Bible constantly and growing in Christ; who cares what translation it is?

ESV is more accurate, and uses the same manuscripts. But those manuscripts have a shady past. Textus receptus has a little more verifiable history. (NKJV/KJV) are probably the most accurate in my opinion.

 

[dstamps]

Regarding gender there is no male or female, we are all sons of God. The nkjv has altered some of the original meaning in the KJV

The concept of male and female is a very important concept first introduced in Genesis 1. Yes, the last part of your statement is correct "we are all sons of God"; but all 'sons' have a male and female side of their spiritual being. The two sides are joined 'married' to create a living Soul on the expression spiritual plane. These two sides are represented on the physical plane as two, separate physical forms.

1. The male side is the interpreter of all things external to the living Soul and interacts directly with the physical plane by way of the physical body.
2. The female side determines the needs internal to the living Soul and can only interact with the physical plane through the male side.

These are very basic details that could lead to a much more detailed discussion.

 

[createdtoworship]

The NASB is probably the most accurate but quite frankly; if you're reading the Bible constantly and growing in Christ; who cares what translation it is?

All main translations use the Masoretic text for all of the OT. Your “Byzantine text” et al refer To the NT Greek, not the Hebrew OT.

I hear that a lot. Always from KJVO-ers who have never actually read the Greek or the Hebrew.

I guess you noticed the "sources" demeaning the Alexandrian text-type are KJV-Only cult sites?

Given that many Hebrew, Aramaic, & Koine Greek words have multiple English meanings, I believe it's important to study several English Bible translations, both old & new. My fave is the NKJV, followed closely by the NASV. But I STUDY older translations, from Wycliffe's onward, for a more-eclectic overview of the whole body of Scripture.

The King James Version of the New Testament was based upon a Greek text (the Textus Receptus) that was marred by mistakes, containing the accumulated errors of fourteen centuries of manuscript copying. It was essentially the Greek text of the New Testament as edited by Beza, 1589, who closely followed that published by Erasmus, 1516-1535, which was based upon a few medieval manuscripts. The earliest and best of the eight manuscripts which Erasmus consulted was from the tenth century, and yet he made the least use of it because it differed most from the commonly received text; Beza had access to two manuscripts of great value, dating from the fifth and sixth centuries, but he made very little use of them because they differed from the text published by Erasmus. We now possess many more ancient manuscripts (about 9000 compared to just 10) of the New Testament, and thanks to another 400 years of biblical scholarship, are far better equipped to seek to recover the original wording of the Greek text. Much as we might love the KJV and the majesty of it’s Jacobean English, modern translations are more accurate.

I think it is at this point a good opportunity to realize that the modern day translations may be based on a fraudulent manuscript. It is good to at least accept that part and at least be open to it. If we are to be honest with ourselves. Check it out here: kjvonly2: Sinaiticus may really be a forgery after all...

Yes I realize it may be a KJV only site. However we must fact check the actual facts and not straw man the entire site as a cult, as some posters have mentioned here as that is a logical fallacy of poisoning the well.

 

[Concord1968]

Except that KJV Onlyism IS a cult. There's nothing "shady" about the ancient manuscripts except in the fertile imaginations of KJV Only cultists.

My suggestion is you read "The King James Only Controversy" by James White. It refutes the spurious accusations of the KJV Only cultists.

 

[Just Another User]

ESV is more accurate, and uses the same manuscripts. But those manuscripts have a shady past. Textus receptus has a little more verifiable history. (NKJV/KJV) are probably the most accurate in my opinion.

The ESV is very accurate too but I think most scholars would agree that the NASB is superior. Still they're probably the best if we're looking for best english "translation" (all bibles are equal because they're all inspired). I would have to disagree about the KJV being the most accurate (though the singular and plural you's are incredibly helpful) but again I really couldn't care. If you're reading scripture than you can choose whatever makes you feel the most comfortable.

p.s. the shady past you're referring to is KJV only propaganda since when we refer to the Alexandrian texts as one "group" it's best quite frankly on geography rather than a tradition though that being said they are roughly 80% similar but you'd expect that due to being closer to the actual original documents.

 

[Copperhead]

No translation is perfect. Even the KJV has flaws, but at least it has been around long enough that the flaws are pretty much well known. I think the Latin Vulgate does a better job than many translations in some areas, especially in illuminating what is meant by some Greek and Hebrew words that really weren't brought over to the English all that well. I think the 1599 Geneva Bible does a great job in many areas. I grew up on the KJV, so I have a fondness for it also and by extension, the NKJV. But I have found some newer translations like the ISV to be worth using from time to time.

I am not sure the "newer is better" thing really is. While the source material may be more vast, it still comes down to the quality of the translators. Greek was in full blown use throughout the church when Jerome did the Latin Vulgate in the 4th century. If there were issues with that translation, it would not have stood the test of time. The KJV became widespread due to English conquests throughout the world, but there is some mischievous goings on there. Queen Mary had banished evangelicals from England and those evangelicals put together the Geneva Bible later in exile. It was dedicated to Queen Elizabeth that followed Mary, but when King James came to power, he outlawed the Geneva Bible and the KJV became known as the "authorized version". The primary Bible of the early New World settlers and governments was the 1599 Geneva Bible.

There is always something in the background going on. And I can comfortably state that is more prevalent than ever given modern English translations. While governments do not have their hand in the cookie jar regarding translations as they did in the past, there is publisher marketing leverage being applied to keep some translations from more widespread availability. You end up with a small cadre of translations on the majority of shelves with the marketing publishers controlling availability of others. And the translations with the most publisher marketing money seem to rise to the top of the stack.

From the outside, it seems that translations today are not so much about being the best, but who can sell the most Bibles and cover the most markets. One can cloak it in "reaching the world with the Bible", but money still seems to be the primary motivation.

Either that or theological agendas are involved. Like the New World Translation of the Watchtower folks. But then, some of that sort of thing may also play into translations. That takes us back to the Geneva Bible vs the KJV.

 

[Concord1968]

No translation is perfect. Even the KJV has flaws, but at least it has been around long enough that the flaws are pretty much well known. I think the Latin Vulgate does a better job than many translations in some areas, especially in illuminating what is meant by some Greek and Hebrew words that really weren't brought over to the English all that well. I think the 1599 Geneva Bible does a great job in many areas. I grew up on the KJV, so I have a fondness for it also and by extension, the NKJV. But I have found some newer translations like the ISV to be worth using from time to time.

I am not sure the "newer is better" thing really is. While the source material may be more vast, it still comes down to the quality of the translators. Greek was in full blown use throughout the church when Jerome did the Latin Vulgate in the 4th century. If there were issues with that translation, it would not have stood the test of time. The KJV became widespread due to English conquests throughout the world, but there is some mischievous goings on there. Queen Mary had banished evangelicals from England and those evangelicals put together the Geneva Bible later in exile. It was dedicated to Queen Elizabeth that followed Mary, but when King James came to power, he outlawed the Geneva Bible and the KJV became known as the "authorized version". The primary Bible of the early New World settlers and governments was the 1599 Geneva Bible.

There is always something in the background going on. And I can comfortably state that is more prevalent than ever given modern English translations. While governments do not have their hand in the cookie jar regarding translations as they did in the past, there is publisher marketing leverage being applied to keep some translations from more widespread availability. You end up with a small cadre of translations on the majority of shelves with the marketing publishers controlling availability of others. And the translations with the most publisher marketing money seem to rise to the top of the stack.

From the outside, it seems that translations today are not so much about being the best, but who can sell the most Bibles and cover the most markets. One can cloak it in "reaching the world with the Bible", but money still seems to be the primary motivation.

Either that or theological agendas are involved. Like the New World Translation of the Watchtower folks. But then, some of that sort of thing may also play into translations. That takes us back to the Geneva Bible vs the KJV.

Actually the Vulgate has some major flaws as well, as Martin Luther discovered. For example, what should have been translated "repent" the Vulgate translates as "do penance". A huge difference with huge implications on the Reformation.

 

[Copperhead]

Actually the Vulgate has some major flaws as well, as Martin Luther discovered. For example, what should have been translated "repent" the Vulgate translates as "do penance". A huge difference with huge implications on the Reformation.

I think I clearly stated that there is no perfect translation. They all have flaws to some degree. We can all cherry pick that each translation and find what we believe is a goof. But in general the LV is pretty good.

I do have a bias of some sort I suppose. Was raised on the older translations. I just never saw any appreciable benefit to many of the newer translations, except maybe the NKJV. Even with the newer versions, the same old food fights in theology remain. Nothing really has changed. So what is the benefit of all these translations again?

 

[Concord1968]

So what is the benefit of all these translations again?

Having the Bible in a language people can actually understand, instead of a language that's 400 years out of date that relatively few people can make heads or tails of.

 

[Copperhead]

Having the Bible in a language people can actually understand, instead of a language that's 400 years out of date that relatively few people can make heads or tails of.

Yes, if we are talking about all the various languages. But where I was going talking primarily about all those English translations, since that is the focus the OP of this thread had in mind.

Well, the NKJV brought the KJV up to date. So again, why do we need two dozen various modern translations to bring up to date the KJV or Geneva Bible?

The question still remains, since the same theologic food fights have been going on for the last 1000 years, what again is the benefit of all these English translations? All it has done is as to the food fight. Now you have churches that make a translation a condition of righteousness.

 

[Concord1968]

Well, if, as you say, they're going to have the "food fight" anyway, then all those translations aren't hurting anything.

And by the way, the only churches I've seen make a translation a condition of righteousness are.....wait for it.....KJV Only churches.

 

[Copperhead]

I have seen the reverse. One of my uncles was a pastor of a congregation that would ridicule anyone who wanted to use the KJV. They swore by the NIV. So it does happen.

 

[JackRT]

And by the way, the only churches I've seen make a translation a condition of righteousness are.....wait for it.....KJV Only churches.

Some denominations have their own translation --- Jehovah's Witnesses for sure and I am not sure about the Mormons.

 

[Concord1968]

Some denominations have their own translation --- Jehovah's Witnesses for sure and I am not sure about the Mormons.

JWs and LDS are NOT denominations: They're non-Christian cults.

 

[JackRT]

JWs and LDS are NOT denominations: They're non-Christian cults.

Actually a better term would be "Christian cults" just as Christianity was originally a "Jewish cult".

 

[Concord1968]

Actually a better term would e "Christian cults" just as Christianity was originally a "Jewish cult".

Except that both deny the Trinity which makes them non-Christian as per this forum's rules:

Christians Only Forums
There are forums reserved for Christian members only. Please do not post in these forums unless you are truly a Christian (please see our Statement of Faith to know exactly what that is). Unorthodox, non-Nicene Christian theology may only be discussed in the Controversial Theology forum.

Statement of Faith
The Nicene Creed
We believe in (Romans 10:8-10; 1John 4:15)
ONE God, (Deuteronomy 6:4, Ephesians 4:6)
the Father (Matthew 6:9)
Almighty, (Exodus 6:3)
Maker of Heaven and Earth, (Genesis 1:1)
and of all things visible and invisible. (Colossians 1:15-16)
And in ONE Lord Jesus Christ, (Acts 11:17)
the Son of God, (Mathew 14:33; 16:16)
the Only-Begotten, (John 1:18; 3:16)
Begotten of the Father before all ages. (John 1:2)
Light of Light; (Psalm 27:1; John 8:12; Matthew 17:2,5)
True God of True God; (John 17:1-5)
Begotten, not made; (John 1:18)
of one essence with the Father (John 10:30)
by whom all things were made; (Hebrews 1:1-2)
Who for us men and for our salvation (1Timothy 2:4-5)
came down from Heaven, (John 6:33,35)
and was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, (Luke 1:35)
and became man. (John 1:14)
And was crucified for us (Mark 15:25; 1Cointhians 15:3)
under Pontius Pilate, (John 19:6)
and suffered, (Mark 8:31)
and was buried. (Luke 23:53; 1Corinthians 15:4)
And the third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures. (Luke 24:1 1Corinthians 15:4)
And ascended into Heaven, (Luke 24:51; Acts 1:10)
and sits at the right hand of the Father. (Mark 16:19; Acts 7:55)
And He shall come again with glory (Matthew 24:27)
to judge the living and the dead; (Acts 10:42; 2Timothy 4:1)
whose Kingdom shall have no end. (2 Peter 1:11)
And in the Holy Spirit, (John 14:26)
the Lord, (Acts 5:3-4)
the Giver of Life, (Genesis 1:2)
Who proceeds from the Father; (John 15:26)
Who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified; (Matthew 3:16-17)
Who spoke through the prophets. (1 Samuel 19:20 ; Ezekiel 11:5,13) In one, (Matthew 16: 18)
holy, (1 Peter 2:5,9)
catholic*, (Mark 16:15)
and apostolic Church. (Acts 2:42; Ephesians 2:19-22)
I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins**. (Ephesians 4:5; Acts 2:38)
I look for the resurrection of the dead, (John 11:24; 1Corinthians 15:12-49; Hebrews 6:2; Revelation 20:5)
and the life of the world to come. (Mark 10:29-30)
AMEN. (Psalm 106:48)

 

[Meester-Chung]

i will buy the Orthodox Study Bible in the future that have the English translation of the Septuagint and the Textus Receptus/Byzantine/Majority Texts

 

[createdtoworship]

Except that KJV Onlyism IS a cult. There's nothing "shady" about the ancient manuscripts except in the fertile imaginations of KJV Only cultists.

My suggestion is you read "The King James Only Controversy" by James White. It refutes the spurious accusations of the KJV Only cultists.

If I was an KJV onlyist, your post would make more sense to me. But I use the NKJV mostly, which is heresy to a KJV only person. But what I was saying was to read the link, and see that I believe it was written by an author of the forum, not the forum itself, if I am not mistaken. An author I have highly respected in the past as logical and methodical. Check it out, and get back to me. But yeah I wouldn't trust the ancient mss, until at least weighing all arguments for and against. TTYL

 

[createdtoworship]

The ESV is very accurate too but I think most scholars would agree that the NASB is superior. Still they're probably the best if we're looking for best english "translation" (all bibles are equal because they're all inspired). I would have to disagree about the KJV being the most accurate (though the singular and plural you's are incredibly helpful) but again I really couldn't care. If you're reading scripture than you can choose whatever makes you feel the most comfortable.

p.s. the shady past you're referring to is KJV only propaganda since when we refer to the Alexandrian texts as one "group" it's best quite frankly on geography rather than a tradition though that being said they are roughly 80% similar but you'd expect that due to being closer to the actual original documents.

again I have said before, I would weigh all arguments for and against ancient manuscripts. What if one day we got to heaven and God said, "Hey that Bible you were using was a forgery." That would be dissapointing to say the least. Especially when all the tools are available here and now to research it. BTW I am not KJV only, but I do read KJV only sites to find the tidbits of information that I find true. I recommend doing that with most forums you are interested in, in theology soteriology, pneumatology. It's important to read a variety of sources, sometimes out of our normal circle to get all sides of the picture. Read the link at least, and tell me what you think,

it's in the OP and says "sinaiticus forgery"

 

[createdtoworship]

No translation is perfect. Even the KJV has flaws, but at least it has been around long enough that the flaws are pretty much well known. I think the Latin Vulgate does a better job than many translations in some areas, especially in illuminating what is meant by some Greek and Hebrew words that really weren't brought over to the English all that well. I think the 1599 Geneva Bible does a great job in many areas. I grew up on the KJV, so I have a fondness for it also and by extension, the NKJV. But I have found some newer translations like the ISV to be worth using from time to time.

I am not sure the "newer is better" thing really is. While the source material may be more vast, it still comes down to the quality of the translators. Greek was in full blown use throughout the church when Jerome did the Latin Vulgate in the 4th century. If there were issues with that translation, it would not have stood the test of time. The KJV became widespread due to English conquests throughout the world, but there is some mischievous goings on there. Queen Mary had banished evangelicals from England and those evangelicals put together the Geneva Bible later in exile. It was dedicated to Queen Elizabeth that followed Mary, but when King James came to power, he outlawed the Geneva Bible and the KJV became known as the "authorized version". The primary Bible of the early New World settlers and governments was the 1599 Geneva Bible.

There is always something in the background going on. And I can comfortably state that is more prevalent than ever given modern English translations. While governments do not have their hand in the cookie jar regarding translations as they did in the past, there is publisher marketing leverage being applied to keep some translations from more widespread availability. You end up with a small cadre of translations on the majority of shelves with the marketing publishers controlling availability of others. And the translations with the most publisher marketing money seem to rise to the top of the stack.

From the outside, it seems that translations today are not so much about being the best, but who can sell the most Bibles and cover the most markets. One can cloak it in "reaching the world with the Bible", but money still seems to be the primary motivation.

Either that or theological agendas are involved. Like the New World Translation of the Watchtower folks. But then, some of that sort of thing may also play into translations. That takes us back to the Geneva Bible vs the KJV.

good post you may be interested in some of the newer majority translations done by various scholars throughout the world, it is in the bottom of the OP. Check some of them out.