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

createdtoworship

In the grip of grace
Mar 13, 2004
18,941
1,758
West Coast USA
✟33,173.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Having the Bible in a language people can actually understand, instead of a language that's 400 years out of date that relatively few people can make heads or tails of.
As I mentioned in the OP, reading various translations is fine, it's just that you should have stricter rules about what is a translation, or what is the "Holy" Bible. For example the living Bible is great and I read it to my kids for bible study, same with the new living bible. But some translations that are newer are actually paraphrases and not translations. They are not the Holy Bible, they are like a commentary.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: ml5363
Upvote 0

createdtoworship

In the grip of grace
Mar 13, 2004
18,941
1,758
West Coast USA
✟33,173.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
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.

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.

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.

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

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

I was rereading the sinaiticus fraud link, and it is very compelling.

I will email the author of the article, I used to have her email.

I will ask for some direct quotes from some books she cites.

but the gist of the article is that Constantine Simonides (1805 - 1867) a scholar around the time of tischendorf, claimed to actually make the fraudulent manuscript himself. He did have a reputable history for making fake manuscripts. I would read the article, very compelling. kjvonly2: Sinaiticus may really be a forgery after all...

also I found this online while researching, in a scholarly forum and no one seemed to address this guys post:
The question of Sinaiticus authenticity toward a wild turn after the manuscript was put online in 2009 by the Codex Sinaiticus Project. It became possible to see that the 1844 Leipzig 43 leaves, about 10% of the parchment, was still a very unusual white parchment, it never yellowed with age. While the 90% of the parchment in London, which had been brought to St. Petersburg in 1859, had a more stained yellow appearance. When this disparity was connected to the specific allegations published in 1863 that Tischendorf (or his allies) had stained the manuscript in the intervening period from 1844 to 1859, you had a rather incredible before and after confirmation of tampering.

This was one of numerous elements that have arisen that has led to the questioning of Sinaiticus "authenticity". Meaning, it may not have been written in the 4th century, there is strong evidence that its production was actually around 1840.

Steven Avery

and another poster confirmed this with this post:

I am not a Greek scholar, but I've read that the date of this codex cannot be as ancient as claimed since it contains modern Greek writing (Epistle of Barnabas) and the state of the book itself has not aged as other manuscripts of any significant age. These factors seem to put more weight on it being the writing of Simonides.
 
Last edited:
  • Informative
Reactions: straykat
Upvote 0

createdtoworship

In the grip of grace
Mar 13, 2004
18,941
1,758
West Coast USA
✟33,173.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
The Origin of the Current KJVO myth
By robycop3

Ever wonder where KJVO-the false doctrine that the KJV is the only valid English Bible translation out there came from? Here's the skinny:

In 1930, a 7th Day Adventist official, Dr. Benjamin Wilkinson(1872-1968), published a book he named "Our Authorized Bible Vindicated" in response to a squabble within the SDA cult. This book is a collection of snippets in favor of the KJV of God's holy word, and is full of goofs, such as the "Psalm 12:6-7 thingie". Apparently, Wilkinson didn't bother to check 0ut the VERACITY of any of the info he gathered. And he copied PARTS of Dean John Burgon's writings, omitting anything that was critical of the Textus Receptus.

He obtained a Scottish copyright for this book, which he apparently allowed to lapse many years ago, as interest in his book was mostly limited to the SDA cult, and for only a short time.

There's no doubt that SDA is a pseudo/quasi-Christian cult, and that Dr. W was a full-fledged SDA official, teacher, and preacher, who often argued for the inerrancy of Ellen Gould White's writings, placing them on a par with Scripture. Several SDA buildings and libraries are named after him.

In 1955, someone called J. J. Ray of Eugene, OR discovered that book, and wrote his/her own book, "God Wrote Only One Bible". Ray copied much of Dr. W's book verbatim in GWOOB without acknowledging him whatsoever, copying many of the goofs in Dr. W's book. Whether Ray obtained Dr. W's permission to use his book, or simply plagiarized it is unknown, but at any rate, Ray used the power of modern media to publicize his/her book, thus starting the idea of KJVO among some of the general public.

Now, try Googling "J. J. Ray" in the Eugene, OR. area. The only one I've found whose lifetime fit the 1955 timeline was a used-car salesman, now deceased, who apparently never published any book. Ray's company, Eye-Opener Publishers, only published that one book. Apparently, "J. J. Ray" is a pseudonym. Now, why would any REAL MAN(or woman) OF GOD use a pseudonym? Apparently, "Ray" was concerned that Dr. W might speak out about his plagiarism.

Then, in 1970, Dr. D. O. Fuller, a Baptist pastor, published "Which Bible?"(3rd revision, 1972), a book which copied much from both Ray and Wilkinson, including many of the original goofs. Like W and Ray before him, he didn't bother to check out the VERACITY of the material he published. And, while he at least acknowledged W, he made absolutely NO mention of W's CULT AFFILIATION. It was this book which brought the public's attention, especially in Baptist circles, to the other two boox, and to KJVO in general. Soon, a whole genre was developed of KJVO boox, all of which drew a large portion of their material from those first three boox.

Now, while Ray's plagiarism and Fuller's deliberate omission of W's CULT AFFILIATION might've been legal, it was certainly DISHONEST, not something any devout Christian would do!

Now, I have not forgotten Dr. Peter S. Ruckman's 1964 works, "Manuscript Evidence" and "Bible Babel". These goof-filled worx was derived largely from Wilkinson's and Ray's books, repeating many of their booboos, such as the "Psalm 12:6-7 thingie". and copying an erroneous chart from Ray's book. Ruckman referred to the title of Ray's book as "God Only Wrote One Book", which hints at the inaccuracy of Ruckman's work. However, Ruckman's works was not among the "foundation stones" of the KJVO myth, as were Ray's and Fuller's boox, both derived from Wilkinson's book.

Virtually every current KJVO author, from Riplinger to Bynum to Melton to Grady to whomever, uses material from those first three boox in their own work, often re-worded, but still the same garbage in a different dumpster. About the only newer material in any of these boox is their criticism of newer Bible versions as they came out. We see a pattern of DISHONESTY in KJVO authorship, as many of its authors copy from each other without any acknowledgement, all of them drawing from a KNOWN CULT OFFICIAL'S book! HOW CAN ANY CHRISTIAN, SEEING ALL THIS DISHONESTY AND ATTEMPTS TO CONCEAL OR JUSTIFY IT, BELIEVE KJVO IS FROM GOD?

These facts are easily verified, either on the Internet or in most public libraries. Unlike KJVOs, we Freedom Readers deal in VERIFIABLE FACT, not fishing stories, opinion, and guesswork. All the boox I mentioned are available online legally, in public libraries, many religious bookstores, or are for sale at various web sites of many religious book stores.

Thus, you see why I, and many other Christians who try to serve God in all aspects of life, are so vehemently against the KJVO myth! It's Satanic in origin, definitely NOT FROM GOD!

I challenge any KJVO to show us any book written before 1930 that is largely about KJVO, and which can be traced to having started the current KJVO doctrine.

What's odd is that the translators of the KJV believed things that most KJVO people would repudiate.

I fully agree with you but you will find it is the most accurate version.

Most accurate of its day perhaps; but not so currently.

But ANY translation will NEVER hold a candle to the original. EVER.

The irony is that KJVO folks use the KJV as the standard and not the original texts.

It's pathetic, frankly.

It's a translation. Nothing more, nothing less.

The Majority Text is the true word of God, which originated in Antioch. The Textus Receptus was a collection of faithful translations from the Majority manuscripts, of which the KJV is a faithful translation of.

The contemporary versions use the Alexandrian set of manuscripts, which were corrupted from the time of about 200 AD.

What ever translation one uses, that shouldn't be the end all anyway. Do as you have shown and check in a concordance like Strongs against original language.
That said, my main read is NKJV, I have 5 of those. For an expanded view in English I sometime use an Amplified.

I prefer to use translations which are from the textus receptus. for the old testament, I used the English translation of the Septuagint which is closer to the Hebrew original

I would say that any English translation regardless which Greek text it was based upon would be the very word of the Lord to us for today.My preference would be the Nas, but do also use Nkjv/Esv/1984 Niv/CSB, but would make sure that the heretical ones like used by JW and the Mormons NOT be included!
I would not recommend the 2011 Niv revision, due to its gender inclusive renderings...

Berean Literal Bible. It does a better job of translating the Greek verb tenses which most English versions do a poor job of.

The more recent the translation, the better. Except, of course, for paraphrased versions, such as the Living Bible, and versions with an agenda, such as the Scofield Version.

Textual variants plagued the copies of Scriptures early on, but as we've become more familiar with historical and cultural context and have discovered more ancient manuscripts, we've got not further from the original meaning, but closer.

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?

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...

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.

The lack of response by any KJVOs to the OP of this thread is very telling. They simply have no answers to it, & they can't really defend their false doctrine.

So you say. In fact, they are from the oldest and best manuscripts.



The Hebrew is ambiguous. The NLT does the same as the ESV; both have the other possible interpretation in a footnote.



Absolute nonsense!

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

I thought I would post another evidence of tampering, (from another thread on this forum)
: Before the Codex Sinaiticus, the first five letters of Barnabas were not known to us, but with the "discovery" of the Codex Sinaiticus we were able to know what was in them. The Codex Sinaiticus was found by Constantin von Tischendorf in 1845. The only problem that we have is that in 1843, a good 2 years before the discovery of the Codex Sinaiticus, Constantine Simonides had published a book called the "The Letters of Barnabas" which he even had the first 4 letters that were first found in the Codex Sinaiticus. They were exactly the same, word for word. So the question lies, doesn't it naturally follow that only two sources at that relative time claimed to have the books, and one source claims to forge the second source? Doesn't that add validity to his claim? There is a second source that claims He forged it:
In Oct 15, 1862, Kallinikos Hieromachos, wrote a letter, were it stated that


...I do myself declare to all men by this letter, that the Codex of the Old and New Testaments, together with the Epistle of Barnabas and of the Shepherd Hermas, which was abstracted by Dr. Tischendorf from the Greek monastery of Mount Sinai, is a work of the hands of the unwearied Simonides himself. Inasmuch as I myself saw him in 1843 ... in the month of February writing it in Athos...Dr. Tischendorf, coming to the Greek monastery of Sinai in 1844, in the month of May (if my memory does not deceive me), and remaining there several days, and getting into his hands, by permission of the librarian, the codex we are speaking of, and perusing and re-perusing it frequently, abstracted secretly a small portion of it, but left the largest portion in the place where it was, and departed undisturbed...And I know yet further, that the codex also was cleaned with lemon-juice, professedly for the purpose of cleaning its parchments, but in reality in order to weaken the freshness of the letters, as was actually the case."


this adds validity to the fact that 10% of the manuscript is whiter than the rest of it. It would naturally follow that that was the part that was cleaned with lemon juice.
 
Upvote 0

straykat

Well-Known Member
Apr 17, 2018
1,120
640
Catacombs
✟22,648.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
I thought I would post another evidence of tampering, (from another thread on this forum)
: Before the Codex Sinaiticus, the first five letters of Barnabas were not known to us, but with the "discovery" of the Codex Sinaiticus we were able to know what was in them. The Codex Sinaiticus was found by Constantin von Tischendorf in 1845. The only problem that we have is that in 1843, a good 2 years before the discovery of the Codex Sinaiticus, Constantine Simonides had published a book called the "The Letters of Barnabas" which he even had the first 4 letters that were first found in the Codex Sinaiticus. They were exactly the same, word for word. So the question lies, doesn't it naturally follow that only two sources at that relative time claimed to have the books, and one source claims to forge the second source? Doesn't that add validity to his claim? There is a second source that claims He forged it:
In Oct 15, 1862, Kallinikos Hieromachos, wrote a letter, were it stated that


...I do myself declare to all men by this letter, that the Codex of the Old and New Testaments, together with the Epistle of Barnabas and of the Shepherd Hermas, which was abstracted by Dr. Tischendorf from the Greek monastery of Mount Sinai, is a work of the hands of the unwearied Simonides himself. Inasmuch as I myself saw him in 1843 ... in the month of February writing it in Athos...Dr. Tischendorf, coming to the Greek monastery of Sinai in 1844, in the month of May (if my memory does not deceive me), and remaining there several days, and getting into his hands, by permission of the librarian, the codex we are speaking of, and perusing and re-perusing it frequently, abstracted secretly a small portion of it, but left the largest portion in the place where it was, and departed undisturbed...And I know yet further, that the codex also was cleaned with lemon-juice, professedly for the purpose of cleaning its parchments, but in reality in order to weaken the freshness of the letters, as was actually the case."


this adds validity to the fact that 10% of the manuscript is whiter than the rest of it. It would naturally follow that that was the part that was cleaned with lemon juice.

Those letters of Barnabas were well known and in fragments of Greek and much in Latin. And there's nothing out of the ordinary about them. Simonides said he was commissioned to make a Codex of many books (including the Bible), but it was discarded because of mistakes. He was the first say it was his work when Tischendorf later found the discarded copy and claimed it was older than it was. Simonides is an ally in this. He's the only one who spoke up against this in the past, and Tischendorf and Westcott and Hort slandered him and ruined Simonides' professional life. Don't punish him like they did.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: danbuter
Upvote 0

createdtoworship

In the grip of grace
Mar 13, 2004
18,941
1,758
West Coast USA
✟33,173.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Those letters of Barnabas were well known and in fragments of Greek and much in Latin. And there's nothing out of the ordinary about them. Simonides said he was commissioned to make a Codex of many books (including the Bible), but it was discarded because of mistakes. He was the first say it was his work when Tischendorf later found the discarded copy and claimed it was older than it was. Simonides is an ally in this. He's the only one who spoke up against this in the past, and Tischendorf and Westcott and Hort slandered him and ruined Simonides' professional life. Don't punish him like they did.
you would have to prove the date of the letters, not of the writing of the original but of the date of the manuscripts, and what date they were found. Because they date of the manuscripts is not the date of find.
 
Upvote 0

createdtoworship

In the grip of grace
Mar 13, 2004
18,941
1,758
West Coast USA
✟33,173.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Tinfoil hat conspiracy theories have long ago been debunked:
In Response to Chris Pinto | Alpha and Omega Ministries
I have used bullet points from that site, and refutted them, they are posted in the OP. If you want you can reply there. Most of the refutations to chris pinto and others like myself that support this theory, quote from a letter from simonites. However no one has posted an image or official source of this letter. I am sure it can be proven that the letter was genuine, relatively easily, however I have not seen anyone on this forum do so.
 
Upvote 0

JackRT

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Oct 17, 2015
15,722
16,445
80
small town Ontario, Canada
✟767,295.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Unorthodox
Marital Status
Married
I am not a Greek scholar, but I've read that the date of this codex cannot be as ancient as claimed since it contains modern Greek writing (Epistle of Barnabas) and the state of the book itself has not aged as other manuscripts of any significant age. These factors seem to put more weight on it being the writing of Simonides.

John Dominic Crossan, The Historical Jesus (HarperCollins, 1991) dates the Epistle of Barnabus to about AD 100 making it contemporaneous with the Gospel of John and the Didache.
 
Upvote 0

createdtoworship

In the grip of grace
Mar 13, 2004
18,941
1,758
West Coast USA
✟33,173.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
John Dominic Crossan, The Historical Jesus (HarperCollins, 1991) dates the Epistle of Barnabus to about AD 100 making it contemporaneous with the Gospel of John and the Didache.
yes, the date of a manuscript and the date it was found is not the same date. They need to know when they found it, this is really what is in question. Not the date the manuscript was written. Thanks for the reply.
 
Upvote 0

YeshuaFan

Well-Known Member
Oct 19, 2018
3,003
996
63
Macomb
✟56,324.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
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 nas is the most literal version available, and tends to adhere to Greek text better, but all 3 of those mentioned here are really good for use!
 
  • Agree
Reactions: danbuter
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Concord1968

LCMS Lutheran
Sep 29, 2018
790
437
Pacific Northwest
✟23,029.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
Agreed, as to him Jesus died and was devoured by wild dogs!
As a general rule, one should never consult apostates and atheists about Christianity in general, let alone theology and the Bible. They have 0 credibility.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: danbuter
Upvote 0

JackRT

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Oct 17, 2015
15,722
16,445
80
small town Ontario, Canada
✟767,295.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Unorthodox
Marital Status
Married
As a general rule, one should never consult apostates and atheists about Christianity in general, let alone theology and the Bible. They have 0 credibility.

Nor does that make them wrong. I sometimes wonder if the scholarship of "true believers" can be tainted by a fear of departing from the norm of accepted belief. The same thing sometimes happens with scientists.
 
Upvote 0

Concord1968

LCMS Lutheran
Sep 29, 2018
790
437
Pacific Northwest
✟23,029.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
The rejection of historic Christian orthodoxy = apostasy. Someone like John Dominic Crossan clearly fits the bill, and as such has no business calling himself a Christian or speaking on anything related to Christianity.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

createdtoworship

In the grip of grace
Mar 13, 2004
18,941
1,758
West Coast USA
✟33,173.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
The nas is the most literal version available, and tends to adhere to Greek text better, but all 3 of those mentioned here are really good for use!
NAS is a literal translation and was meant to compete with the KJV in literalness. But it uses inferior manuscripts. As the sinaiticus has allegations of forgery. How can we trust God's words to the copying effort of a master forger? It makes sense that the modern translations leave out verses, because when forging a document you are susceptible to missing some sections. Rather than the opposite, of adding some sections. Which takes more effort.
 
Upvote 0

createdtoworship

In the grip of grace
Mar 13, 2004
18,941
1,758
West Coast USA
✟33,173.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Nor does that make them wrong. I sometimes wonder if the scholarship of "true believers" can be tainted by a fear of departing from the norm of accepted belief. The same thing sometimes happens with scientists.
that would be a healthy fear of the Lord they had. We should all have that fear. Modern textual critics should fear the Lord, and many of them don't. Which is why I rarely study or recommend higher criticism, as a study. I go as far as lower criticism.
 
Upvote 0

JackRT

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Oct 17, 2015
15,722
16,445
80
small town Ontario, Canada
✟767,295.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Unorthodox
Marital Status
Married
that would be a healthy fear of the Lord they had. We should all have that fear. Modern textual critics should fear the Lord, and many of them don't. Which is why I rarely study or recommend higher criticism, as a study. I go as far as lower criticism.

One should never fear new insights. A better approach is to be skeptical --- of both the new insights and the old ones.
 
Upvote 0

createdtoworship

In the grip of grace
Mar 13, 2004
18,941
1,758
West Coast USA
✟33,173.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
One should never fear new insights. A better approach is to be skeptical --- of both the new insights and the old ones.
being a skeptic in life is a very hard life. Imagine disbelieving everything, even good things, and only believing them when imperitively proven as fact, which is hard to do for anything. You would live your life without faith. And Without faith, we can't have hope or joy. So, no...I would rather not live a life of a skeptic.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

createdtoworship

In the grip of grace
Mar 13, 2004
18,941
1,758
West Coast USA
✟33,173.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
The Origin of the Current KJVO myth
By robycop3

Ever wonder where KJVO-the false doctrine that the KJV is the only valid English Bible translation out there came from? Here's the skinny:

In 1930, a 7th Day Adventist official, Dr. Benjamin Wilkinson(1872-1968), published a book he named "Our Authorized Bible Vindicated" in response to a squabble within the SDA cult. This book is a collection of snippets in favor of the KJV of God's holy word, and is full of goofs, such as the "Psalm 12:6-7 thingie". Apparently, Wilkinson didn't bother to check 0ut the VERACITY of any of the info he gathered. And he copied PARTS of Dean John Burgon's writings, omitting anything that was critical of the Textus Receptus.

He obtained a Scottish copyright for this book, which he apparently allowed to lapse many years ago, as interest in his book was mostly limited to the SDA cult, and for only a short time.

There's no doubt that SDA is a pseudo/quasi-Christian cult, and that Dr. W was a full-fledged SDA official, teacher, and preacher, who often argued for the inerrancy of Ellen Gould White's writings, placing them on a par with Scripture. Several SDA buildings and libraries are named after him.

In 1955, someone called J. J. Ray of Eugene, OR discovered that book, and wrote his/her own book, "God Wrote Only One Bible". Ray copied much of Dr. W's book verbatim in GWOOB without acknowledging him whatsoever, copying many of the goofs in Dr. W's book. Whether Ray obtained Dr. W's permission to use his book, or simply plagiarized it is unknown, but at any rate, Ray used the power of modern media to publicize his/her book, thus starting the idea of KJVO among some of the general public.

Now, try Googling "J. J. Ray" in the Eugene, OR. area. The only one I've found whose lifetime fit the 1955 timeline was a used-car salesman, now deceased, who apparently never published any book. Ray's company, Eye-Opener Publishers, only published that one book. Apparently, "J. J. Ray" is a pseudonym. Now, why would any REAL MAN(or woman) OF GOD use a pseudonym? Apparently, "Ray" was concerned that Dr. W might speak out about his plagiarism.

Then, in 1970, Dr. D. O. Fuller, a Baptist pastor, published "Which Bible?"(3rd revision, 1972), a book which copied much from both Ray and Wilkinson, including many of the original goofs. Like W and Ray before him, he didn't bother to check out the VERACITY of the material he published. And, while he at least acknowledged W, he made absolutely NO mention of W's CULT AFFILIATION. It was this book which brought the public's attention, especially in Baptist circles, to the other two boox, and to KJVO in general. Soon, a whole genre was developed of KJVO boox, all of which drew a large portion of their material from those first three boox.

Now, while Ray's plagiarism and Fuller's deliberate omission of W's CULT AFFILIATION might've been legal, it was certainly DISHONEST, not something any devout Christian would do!

Now, I have not forgotten Dr. Peter S. Ruckman's 1964 works, "Manuscript Evidence" and "Bible Babel". These goof-filled worx was derived largely from Wilkinson's and Ray's books, repeating many of their booboos, such as the "Psalm 12:6-7 thingie". and copying an erroneous chart from Ray's book. Ruckman referred to the title of Ray's book as "God Only Wrote One Book", which hints at the inaccuracy of Ruckman's work. However, Ruckman's works was not among the "foundation stones" of the KJVO myth, as were Ray's and Fuller's boox, both derived from Wilkinson's book.

Virtually every current KJVO author, from Riplinger to Bynum to Melton to Grady to whomever, uses material from those first three boox in their own work, often re-worded, but still the same garbage in a different dumpster. About the only newer material in any of these boox is their criticism of newer Bible versions as they came out. We see a pattern of DISHONESTY in KJVO authorship, as many of its authors copy from each other without any acknowledgement, all of them drawing from a KNOWN CULT OFFICIAL'S book! HOW CAN ANY CHRISTIAN, SEEING ALL THIS DISHONESTY AND ATTEMPTS TO CONCEAL OR JUSTIFY IT, BELIEVE KJVO IS FROM GOD?

These facts are easily verified, either on the Internet or in most public libraries. Unlike KJVOs, we Freedom Readers deal in VERIFIABLE FACT, not fishing stories, opinion, and guesswork. All the boox I mentioned are available online legally, in public libraries, many religious bookstores, or are for sale at various web sites of many religious book stores.

Thus, you see why I, and many other Christians who try to serve God in all aspects of life, are so vehemently against the KJVO myth! It's Satanic in origin, definitely NOT FROM GOD!

I challenge any KJVO to show us any book written before 1930 that is largely about KJVO, and which can be traced to having started the current KJVO doctrine.

What's odd is that the translators of the KJV believed things that most KJVO people would repudiate.

I fully agree with you but you will find it is the most accurate version.

Most accurate of its day perhaps; but not so currently.

But ANY translation will NEVER hold a candle to the original. EVER.

The irony is that KJVO folks use the KJV as the standard and not the original texts.

It's pathetic, frankly.

It's a translation. Nothing more, nothing less.

The Majority Text is the true word of God, which originated in Antioch. The Textus Receptus was a collection of faithful translations from the Majority manuscripts, of which the KJV is a faithful translation of.

The contemporary versions use the Alexandrian set of manuscripts, which were corrupted from the time of about 200 AD.

What ever translation one uses, that shouldn't be the end all anyway. Do as you have shown and check in a concordance like Strongs against original language.
That said, my main read is NKJV, I have 5 of those. For an expanded view in English I sometime use an Amplified.

I prefer to use translations which are from the textus receptus. for the old testament, I used the English translation of the Septuagint which is closer to the Hebrew original

I would say that any English translation regardless which Greek text it was based upon would be the very word of the Lord to us for today.My preference would be the Nas, but do also use Nkjv/Esv/1984 Niv/CSB, but would make sure that the heretical ones like used by JW and the Mormons NOT be included!
I would not recommend the 2011 Niv revision, due to its gender inclusive renderings...

Berean Literal Bible. It does a better job of translating the Greek verb tenses which most English versions do a poor job of.

The more recent the translation, the better. Except, of course, for paraphrased versions, such as the Living Bible, and versions with an agenda, such as the Scofield Version.

Textual variants plagued the copies of Scriptures early on, but as we've become more familiar with historical and cultural context and have discovered more ancient manuscripts, we've got not further from the original meaning, but closer.

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?

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...

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.

The lack of response by any KJVOs to the OP of this thread is very telling. They simply have no answers to it, & they can't really defend their false doctrine.

So you say. In fact, they are from the oldest and best manuscripts.



The Hebrew is ambiguous. The NLT does the same as the ESV; both have the other possible interpretation in a footnote.



Absolute nonsense!

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

"Now there are those who would argue that the last twelve verses of Mark's Gospel are not found in some of the earliest manuscripts. It is true that these last twelve verses of Mark's Gospel are not found in the Codex Sinaiticus or the Codex Vaticanus, which are both a part of the Alexandrian family of manuscripts. However, it is interesting to note that the early church fathers, Iranius, who lived from AD 140 to 202, and Hippolatus, who lived from AD 170 to 235, both quote from these last twelve verses of Mark's Gospel. Now the argument that some of the scholars give is that because this portion of Mark's Gospel does not appear in the Codex Sinaiticus, which is one of the oldest complete manuscripts that we possess (though it really is not complete), they say that this passage then was inserted later on by a copier. However, Codex Sinaiticus actually dates back to sometime into the AD 400s. They do not know the exact date, however 420 to 460 are the dates that are usually established for the Codex Sinaiticus. Here is Iranius, one of the church fathers, 200 years before the Codex Sinaiticus was ever copied and he is quoting, no doubt, from an earlier manuscript. And so, the overwhelming evidence is that the last twelve verses of Mark's Gospel actually were in the original manuscripts and somehow got deleted from the Codex Sinaiticus and the Vaticanus which comes, as I say, from the same Alexandrian family of manuscripts."- Chuck Smith (blue letter Bible)
 
  • Informative
Reactions: danbuter
Upvote 0