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

gradyll said:

my number 1 is NKJV, second is ESV. but I like the byzantine text type, byzantine family, type manuscripts.

so the NKJV/KJV, and 1 or two others are from these manuscripts, athough many majority text translations are in the works currently. Some better quality than others.

there are numerous basic errors in the KJV, which most don't want to mention. But the NKJV fixes them for the most part. But the NKJV may have taken too much liberty in some instances, and needs to be updated badly.

but regardless we need to stray from NASB, NIV, and ESV (uugg)....because they are from questionable manuscripts. Encouraging a questionable manuscript is not a good thing.

I still use the ESV as a greek tool to see how some words are translated, because it is a quite excellent word for word translation, it's just that it is based on a questionable alexandrian text like the sinaiticus. But I thought I would mention that ESV does have errors, like in this instance it translated genesis 3:16 with a theological twist to it.

I agree that the context does state that woman was desiring mans role, as lead. As most expository commentaries suggest, But the text itself says more of what the NKJV does, literally the word means a desire "toward" so "to" is real close. It's important with translations to have one that does not put theological viewpoints into the text, and simply translates what was in greek and hebrew in a literal fashion. But regarding the manuscript behind the ESV, there is some questions as to it's legitimacy.


more on the alleged sinaiticus forgery here:
http://kjvonly2.blogspot.com/2011/09/sinaiticus-may-really-be-forgery-after.html

here is an analysis on the priority of the byzantine over the modern texts source (alexandrian):
The Byzantine Priority Hypothesis


and some other translations that are not archaic like the KJV but still based on majority text: There is a huge need for a fully updated majority text tradition translation, many many people have undergone this task, and here are some of them. Some are better than others: And again I believe the NKJV is also a good text, but it needs an updated revision as well. Maybe undo some of the unnecessary changes.
(some links criticize some majority text translations, others support them, this is my list of links, they are unsorted and for your analysis and feedback as you have time)

http://www.byztxt.com/download/index.html
http://www.skypoint.com/members/waltzmn/RobPier.html
http://evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogspot.com/2006/01/review-of-robinson-and-pierpont.html

http://www.byztxt.com/download/index.html
http://solascriptura-tt.org/Bibliol...extMovingAwayFromPreservedScripture-Cloud.htm
https://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/te...ament_greek/text/wallace-majoritytext-gtj.pdf
https://bible.org/article/some-second-thoughts-majority-text
http://evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogspot.com/2006/03/interview-with-dan-wallace.html
http://www.livingwater.org/about-the-logos-21-translation.html
https://bible.org/article/majority-text-and-original-text-are-they-identical#_ftnref26
http://majoritytext.com/letter.html
http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/gtj/04-1_119.pdf
http://www.skypoint.com/members/waltzmn/RobPier.html
http://evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogspot.com/2006/01/review-of-robinson-and-pierpont.html

Click to expand...

gradyll said:

my number 1 is NKJV, second is ESV. but I like the byzantine text type, byzantine family, type manuscripts.

so the NKJV/KJV, and 1 or two others are from these manuscripts, athough many majority text translations are in the works currently. Some better quality than others.

there are numerous basic errors in the KJV, which most don't want to mention. But the NKJV fixes them for the most part. But the NKJV may have taken too much liberty in some instances, and needs to be updated badly.

but regardless we need to stray from NASB, NIV, and ESV (uugg)....because they are from questionable manuscripts. Encouraging a questionable manuscript is not a good thing.

I still use the ESV as a greek tool to see how some words are translated, because it is a quite excellent word for word translation, it's just that it is based on a questionable alexandrian text like the sinaiticus. But I thought I would mention that ESV does have errors, like in this instance it translated genesis 3:16 with a theological twist to it.

I agree that the context does state that woman was desiring mans role, as lead. As most expository commentaries suggest, But the text itself says more of what the NKJV does, literally the word means a desire "toward" so "to" is real close. It's important with translations to have one that does not put theological viewpoints into the text, and simply translates what was in greek and hebrew in a literal fashion. But regarding the manuscript behind the ESV, there is some questions as to it's legitimacy.


more on the alleged sinaiticus forgery here:
http://kjvonly2.blogspot.com/2011/09/sinaiticus-may-really-be-forgery-after.html

here is an analysis on the priority of the byzantine over the modern texts source (alexandrian):
The Byzantine Priority Hypothesis


and some other translations that are not archaic like the KJV but still based on majority text: There is a huge need for a fully updated majority text tradition translation, many many people have undergone this task, and here are some of them. Some are better than others: And again I believe the NKJV is also a good text, but it needs an updated revision as well. Maybe undo some of the unnecessary changes.
(some links criticize some majority text translations, others support them, this is my list of links, they are unsorted and for your analysis and feedback as you have time)

http://www.byztxt.com/download/index.html
http://www.skypoint.com/members/waltzmn/RobPier.html
http://evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogspot.com/2006/01/review-of-robinson-and-pierpont.html

http://www.byztxt.com/download/index.html
http://solascriptura-tt.org/Bibliol...extMovingAwayFromPreservedScripture-Cloud.htm
https://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/te...ament_greek/text/wallace-majoritytext-gtj.pdf
https://bible.org/article/some-second-thoughts-majority-text
http://evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogspot.com/2006/03/interview-with-dan-wallace.html
http://www.livingwater.org/about-the-logos-21-translation.html
https://bible.org/article/majority-text-and-original-text-are-they-identical#_ftnref26
http://majoritytext.com/letter.html
http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/gtj/04-1_119.pdf
http://www.skypoint.com/members/waltzmn/RobPier.html
http://evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogspot.com/2006/01/review-of-robinson-and-pierpont.html

Click to expand...

gradyll said:

but regardless we need to stray from NASB, NIV, and ESV (uugg)....because they are from questionable manuscripts. Encouraging a questionable manuscript is not a good thing.

I still use the ESV as a greek tool to see how some words are translated, because it is a quite excellent word for word translation, it's just that it is based on a questionable alexandrian text like the sinaiticus. But I thought I would mention that ESV does have errors, like in this instance it translated genesis 3:16 with a theological twist to it.

Click to expand...

gradyll said:

but regardless we need to stray from NASB, NIV, and ESV (uugg)....because they are from questionable manuscripts. Encouraging a questionable manuscript is not a good thing.

Click to expand...

gradyll said:

But I thought I would mention that ESV does have errors, like in this instance it translated genesis 3:16 with a theological twist to it.

Click to expand...

gradyll said:

more on the alleged sinaiticus forgery here:
http://kjvonly2.blogspot.com/2011/09/sinaiticus-may-really-be-forgery-after.html

Click to expand...

Pethesedzao said:

the KJV is the most accurate in comparison to all the other versions. the nkjv has twisted a lot of the original text and added some of its own meanings...

Click to expand...

Radagast said:

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

Click to expand...

Radagast said:

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

Click to expand...

gradyll said:

See the problem is that many times the recent manuscripts contradict the old manuscripts. So which one is correct? If both were God's word, than that means God's word has errors. Correct? Also it is important to note that the original manuscripts were what is considered inspired by God. Yes His hand is upon the preservation of His word to all languages, but in a less direct way and not a way that is technically "inspiration". The english versions do their best to translate, God's word into a secondary language. And that process creates errors. Usually human error of some type. Thats why some suggest that the most recent translations, such as the ESV are the most accurate. Because we have technology and such that can see errors. But the only problem is the ESV is based on a forgery, the sinaiticus.

Click to expand...