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

createdtoworship · May 25, 2019

GoldenKingGaze said:
The NKJV is translated from the newer scripts and has their errors.

every bible has errors, the NKJV has maybe a few hundred, while the NIV has over 10,000 variations from the literal greek text it was arisen from. So it's your pick

FEZZILLA · May 25, 2019

gradyll said:
Ecclesiastes 8:10

"wicked....were forgotten" (correct)
NKJV

"wicked...receive praise"
NIV

"wicked....were praised"
ESV

NASB correct

Amos 9:6

"The One who builds His upper chambers in the heavens
And has founded His vaulted dome over the earth,
He who calls for the waters of the sea
And pours them out on the face of the earth,
The Lord is His name" (NASB).

"He that hath hys dwellynge in heauen, & groundeth hys tabernacle in the earth: He that calleth the waters of the sea, and poureth them out vpon the playne grounde: hys name is the Lorde" (1537 Matthew's Bible).

"He that hath hys dwellynge in heauen, & groundeth hys tabernacle in the earth: He that calleth the waters as the see, & poureth them out vpon the playne grounde: his name is the Lorde" (1539 Great Bible).

"He buildeth his spheres in the heauen, and hath laide the foundation of his globe of elements in the earth: hee calleth the waters of the sea, and powreth them out vpon the open earth: the Lord is his Name" (1560 Geneva Bible).

"He buyldeth his spheres in the heauen, & hath layde the foundation of his globe of elementes on the earth: he calleth the waters of the sea, and poureth them out vpon the open earth, the Lorde is his name" (1568 Bishop's Bible).

"It is he that buildeth his stories in the heaven, and hath founded his troop in the earth; he that calleth for the waters of the sea, and poureth them out upon the face of the earth: The Lord is his name" (KJV)

https://www.wordhippo.com/what-is/the/latin-word-for-1d5ea82fc550fe1938c1af0fb5c51fa927de8cd3.html

"Who is building in the heavens His upper chambers; As to His troop, Upon earth He hath founded it, Who is calling for the waters of the sea, And poureth them out on the face of the land, Jehovah `is' His name" (1862 Young's Literal Translation).

"He building his ascents in the heavens, and founding his arches upon the earth; he calling to the waters of the sea, and he will pour them forth upon the face of the earth: Jehovah his name" (1876 Julia Smith Bible).

"who builds his upper chambers in the heavens
and founds his vault upon the earth;
who calls for the waters of the sea
and pours them out upon the surface of the earth—
the Lord is his name" (ESV).

"It is He that buildeth His spheres in the heaven, and hath founded His troop on the earth. He that calleth for the waters of the sea and poureth them out upon the face of the earth—the Lord is His name" (KJ21).

"He that buildeth his ascension in heaven, and hath founded his bundle upon the earth: who calleth the waters of the sea, and poureth them out upon the face of the earth, the Lord is his name" (Douay-Rheims).

"He builds His upper chambers
in the heavens
and lays the foundation of His vault
on the earth.
He summons the waters of the sea
and pours them out on the face of the earth.
Yahweh is His name" (HCSB).

"who builds His chambers in the heavens,
and founds His vault over the earth;
who summons the waters of the sea,
and pours them out upon the surface of the earth—
the Lord is His name" (MEV).

"Who has built his upper chamber in heaven,
and established his vault over the earth;
Who summons the waters of the sea
and pours them upon the surface of the earth—
the Lord is his name" (NABRE).

"he builds his lofty palace on the earth;
he calls for the waters of the sea
and pours them out over the face of the land—
the Lord is his name" (NIV).

"He who builds His in the sky,
And has founded His strata in the earth;
Who calls for the waters of the sea,
And pours them out on the face of the earth—
The Lord is His name" (NKJV).

"The Lord’s home reaches up to the heavens,
while its foundation is on the earth.
He draws up water from the oceans
and pours it down as rain on the land.
The Lord is his name!" (NLT).

"who builds his upper chambers in the heavens,
and founds his vault upon the earth;
who calls for the waters of the sea,
and pours them out upon the surface of the earth—
the Lord is his name" (RSV).

The NASB is the only translation that gets it waay wrong. There is no dome mentioned. This translation philosophy also contradicts Genesis chapter 1 in the NASB which actually very nicely translated. But that accurate translation of Genesis 1 contradicts the Amos 9:6 verse and Gen.1 of the NASB does not conform to the flat earth model. So whoever translated dome into Amos 9:6 did so deliberately and contradicted Gen.1 in the process.

The NASB has to revise Amos 9:6 or it cannot ever be taken seriously again.

GoldenKingGaze · May 25, 2019

I think Gordon Fee wrote a book called, How to Choose a Bible for All it's Worth.

createdtoworship · May 25, 2019

FEZZILLA said:
Amos 9:6

https://www.wordhippo.com/what-is/the/latin-word-for-1d5ea82fc550fe1938c1af0fb5c51fa927de8cd3.html

The NASB is the only translation that gets it waay wrong. There is no dome mentioned. This translation philosophy also contradicts Genesis chapter 1 in the NASB which actually very nicely translated. But that accurate translation of Genesis 1 contradicts the Amos 9:6 verse and Gen.1 of the NASB does not conform to the flat earth model. So whoever translated dome into Amos 9:6 did so deliberately and contradicted Gen.1 in the process.

The NASB has to revise Amos 9:6 or it cannot ever be taken seriously again.

interesting, thanks for this. NASB uses compromised sinaiticus manuscript.

FEZZILLA · May 25, 2019

gradyll said:
interesting, thanks for this. NASB uses compromised sinaiticus manuscript.

That's interesting because all older manuscripts disagree with it. Though it is hard to translate and I have yet to truly master the verse. Not sure if I ever will. That verse has been a problem child for translators ever since Coverdale and Tyndale. I would like to solve that one.

createdtoworship · May 25, 2019

GoldenKingGaze said:
I think Gordon Fee wrote a book called, How to Choose a Bible for All it's Worth.

looked up reviews for that book, a few one star reviews say the basically mentions how hard it is to translate a Bible, and talks of all the nuts and bolts of that process but offers no practical advise on comparisons of actual bible translations.

createdtoworship · Jun 2, 2019

createdtoworship · Jun 6, 2019

Matthew 9:13 πορευθέντες δὲ μάθετε τί ἐστιν Ἔλεον θέλω καὶ οὐ θυσίαν οὐ γὰρἦλθον καλέσαι δικαίους ἀλλ᾽ ἁμαρτωλοὺς εἰς μετάνοιαν

that is the greek textus receptus, and the last word is metanoia (repentance).

modern translations omit the word repentance:

Radagast · Jun 9, 2019

FEZZILLA said:
The NASB is the only translation that gets it waay wrong. There is no dome mentioned.

The Hebrew word is 'aguddah, elsewhere translated "bundle" or "troop."

Here the translation is uncertain. ASV, CSB, NAB, and ESV have "vault." The NASB has "vaulted dome." The NIV and NLT have "foundation." The NKJV has "strata."

Hard to say who's right and who's wrong.

Radagast · Jun 9, 2019

gradyll said:
View attachment 257529

The oldest Greek manuscripts do not actually contain the words "on me," although of course that is understood.

Radagast · Jun 9, 2019

gradyll said:
interesting, thanks for this. NASB uses compromised sinaiticus manuscript.

Like most modern translations, the NASB translates the Old Testament from the Masoretic Hebrew, not from the Sinaiticus version of the Septuagint, so you're being a little deceptive here.

As a matter of fact, the Septuagint translates the word as "promise," so the NASB clearly did not follow that. As to the Sinaiticus version of the Septuagint, wasn't Amos one of the books missing due to damage?

createdtoworship · Jun 10, 2019

Radagast said:
The oldest Greek manuscripts do not actually contain the words "on me," although of course that is understood.

oldest manuscripts are less complete because they have deteriorated more, in fact we have have a lot of verses in the receptus that are not in westcott hort..

createdtoworship · Jun 10, 2019

Radagast said:
Like most modern translations, the NASB translates the Old Testament from the Masoretic Hebrew, not from the Sinaiticus version of the Septuagint, so you're being a little deceptive here.

As a matter of fact, the Septuagint translates the word as "promise," so the NASB clearly did not follow that. As to the Sinaiticus version of the Septuagint, wasn't Amos one of the books missing due to damage?

but what about the new testament, where all the soteriology is? What did the NASB use for the new testament? And, I didn't know it used the massoretic old testament, which is good, but the new testament is critical.

YeshuaBought · Jun 10, 2019

The KJV is a high quality translation, but i prfer the NKJV.

createdtoworship · Jun 10, 2019

YeshuaRedeemed said:
The KJV is a high quality translation, but i prfer the NKJV.

yes the NKJV corrects many errors that were in the KJV, it's a superiour translation. the KJV is poetic and has old english, which is nice to read sometimes.

GoldenKingGaze · Jun 11, 2019

gradyll said:
but what about the new testament, where all the soteriology is? What did the NASB use for the new testament? And, I didn't know it used the massoretic old testament, which is good, but the new testament is critical.

There are hundreds of scripts, and copyists, translators pick the best quality and style of rendering copies...

createdtoworship · Jun 11, 2019

GoldenKingGaze said:
There are hundreds of scripts, and copyists, translators pick the best quality and style of rendering copies...

it most likely used the alexandrian text for the most critical new testament, in which is the entire gospel of grace through faith (with repentance). Without a new testament, we would not know how to actually be saved. So it's more important to have a good manuscript for the new testament. That is why I was asking. It's fine that modern manuscripts use massoretic text for the OT, but alexandrian text fo rthe NT is bad. Alexandrian text is missing leaves, because of it's age. And I bet this is why the receptus actually has dozens more verses in it. And of these missing verses, the church fathers quote from them. So apparently there is older manuscripts of the receptus style, that are now missing. Makes you wonder why the alexandrian are showing bleached white, new parchments, when they are so old.

Radagast · Jun 11, 2019

gradyll said:
the NIV has over 10,000 variations from the literal greek text it was arisen from

This is simply not true.

gradyll said:
Alexandrian text is missing leaves, because of it's age.

This is nonsense. The "Alexandrian text" is not a single physical document.

gradyll said:
Makes you wonder why the alexandrian are showing bleached white, new parchments, when they are so old.

This is just false. Take a look at, for example, Codex Sinaiticus - Home

gradyll said:
And of these missing verses, the church fathers quote from them.

Well, first, quotes from the Church fathers are taken into accounts when establishing the standard NT text. Second, there are no "missing verses." Many of the extra verses in the Textus Receptus are in fact duplicates of a verse elsewhere. For example, Matthew 23:14 (in the KJV but not in the NIV) is mostly a copy of Mark 12:40 and Luke 20:47.

createdtoworship · Jun 11, 2019

Radagast said:
This is simply not true.

This is nonsense. The "Alexandrian text" is not a single physical document.

This is just false. Take a look at, for example, Codex Sinaiticus - Home

Well, first, quotes from the Church fathers are taken into accounts when establishing the standard NT text. Second, there are no "missing verses." Many of the extra verses in the Textus Receptus are in fact duplicates of a verse elsewhere. For example, Matthew 23:14 (in the KJV but not in the NIV) is mostly a copy of Mark 12:40 and Luke 20:47.

I don't have time to address all of the error in this one post. However I will mention that the NIV deters from a literal greek translation over 10,000 times. I can post the exact number later. And yes the alexandrian family of manuscripts has a primary codex with missing leaves. And yes, again in the sinaiticus there are whiter papryi leaves whiter than the rest, which is questionable especially when the part that was white was not extant in any other manuscript, suggesting it was added. .

caspianrex · Jun 12, 2019

Wow. Looks like KJV-Onlyism is alive and well here on Christian Forums.
So many of these faulty arguments have been addressed over and over by reputable scholars.
I would recommend this article by Daniel Wallace: Why I Do Not Think the King James Bible Is the Best Translation Available Today | Bible.org

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

In the grip of grace

Well-Known Member

Prevent Slavery, support the persecuted.

In the grip of grace

Well-Known Member

In the grip of grace

In the grip of grace

In the grip of grace

comes and goes

comes and goes

comes and goes

In the grip of grace

In the grip of grace

John 14:3

In the grip of grace

Prevent Slavery, support the persecuted.

In the grip of grace

comes and goes

In the grip of grace

Bible collector

Similar threads