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

ViaCrucis · Jun 12, 2019

Whenever I see people speaking of the TR as though it--as a single, unified, discrete Greek text--existed prior to the 17th century it tells me that they really haven't bothered to actually do any reading into this subject.

If you go online to look at or read, or buy a copy of the Textus Receptus what are getting isn't some Greek text which the translators of the KJV used, you are looking at is a retrofit Greek text which intentionally uses the variants and readings of the KJV.

The translators of the KJV didn't use "The Textus Receptus", they used several critical editions of the Greek New Testament, those of Erasmus, Stephanus, and Beza. These are critical editions, not manuscripts. Critical editions are made from manuscripts, by taking manuscripts and using critical methods to choose which variant readings to use. The critical texts used by the translation committee to produce the KJV did not all agree with one another, and they actually used several of Eramus' texts (Erasmus produced five versions, updates and revisions, of his Novum Testamentum, and the KJV translators used IIRC three of them) and so even just taking the work of Erasmus into account there wasn't complete agreement with those. As such the translators had to make the best informed and educated decisions they could as to which readings from these critical texts to use in their translation.

The single "text" of the Textus Receptus was produced and printed AFTER the KJV was translated, taking the readings of the KJV and producing a uniform Greek text based from the KJV's choice readings.

-CryptoLutheran

timtams · Jun 12, 2019

ViaCrucis said:
Whenever I see people speaking of the TR as though it--as a single, unified, discrete Greek text--existed prior to the 17th century it tells me that they really haven't bothered to actually do any reading into this subject.

If you go online to look at or read, or buy a copy of the Textus Receptus what are getting isn't some Greek text which the translators of the KJV used, you are looking at is a retrofit Greek text which intentionally uses the variants and readings of the KJV.

The translators of the KJV didn't use "The Textus Receptus", they used several critical editions of the Greek New Testament, those of Erasmus, Stephanus, and Beza. These are critical editions, not manuscripts. Critical editions are made from manuscripts, by taking manuscripts and using critical methods to choose which variant readings to use. The critical texts used by the translation committee to produce the KJV did not all agree with one another, and they actually used several of Eramus' texts (Erasmus produced five versions, updates and revisions, of his Novum Testamentum, and the KJV translators used IIRC three of them) and so even just taking the work of Erasmus into account there wasn't complete agreement with those. As such the translators had to make the best informed and educated decisions they could as to which readings from these critical texts to use in their translation.

The single "text" of the Textus Receptus was produced and printed AFTER the KJV was translated, taking the readings of the KJV and producing a uniform Greek text based from the KJV's choice readings.

-CryptoLutheran

If you're going to berate others for poor research, it helps not to get everything wrong yourself. The "received text" refers to the edited, published text, not to manuscripts. "Text" doesn't mean manuscript. It never referred to manuscripts. Furthermore, the earliest editions are sixteenth century, not seventeenth. The KJV is translated from "the textus receptus" (primarily the editions of Stephanus, though other editions of the TR were consulted). It consulted various editions of the TR but it is still translated from the TR. The "retrofit" Greek text you're thinking of is probably Scrivener's from the nineteenth century. There is no single "edition" of the TR, but there are not multiple TRs. Your mistakes are understandable; your berating of others for ignorance makes your poor comprehension of the matter inexcusable.

createdtoworship · Jun 12, 2019

caspianrex said:
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

Sir I don't know if anyone has mentioned this but KJV only has not been presented here at all. Most of us who like the KJV, use the NKJV, which is heresy to KJV only.

createdtoworship · Jun 12, 2019

ViaCrucis said:
Whenever I see people speaking of the TR as though it--as a single, unified, discrete Greek text--existed prior to the 17th century it tells me that they really haven't bothered to actually do any reading into this subject.

If you go online to look at or read, or buy a copy of the Textus Receptus what are getting isn't some Greek text which the translators of the KJV used, you are looking at is a retrofit Greek text which intentionally uses the variants and readings of the KJV.

The translators of the KJV didn't use "The Textus Receptus", they used several critical editions of the Greek New Testament, those of Erasmus, Stephanus, and Beza. These are critical editions, not manuscripts. Critical editions are made from manuscripts, by taking manuscripts and using critical methods to choose which variant readings to use. The critical texts used by the translation committee to produce the KJV did not all agree with one another, and they actually used several of Eramus' texts (Erasmus produced five versions, updates and revisions, of his Novum Testamentum, and the KJV translators used IIRC three of them) and so even just taking the work of Erasmus into account there wasn't complete agreement with those. As such the translators had to make the best informed and educated decisions they could as to which readings from these critical texts to use in their translation.

The single "text" of the Textus Receptus was produced and printed AFTER the KJV was translated, taking the readings of the KJV and producing a uniform Greek text based from the KJV's choice readings.

-CryptoLutheran

do you have evidence the KJV was not based on the textus receptus? Preferbally not from a liberal scholar point of view but from a respectable seminary. I just double checked the most respectable seminary I know of and they said this:

"Third, when one examines the variations between the Greek text behind the KJV (the Textus Receptus) and the Greek text behind modern translations."

this is from an unbiased source, and from an article that does not even agree with KJV. So by all means provide evidence of the accuracy of this post.

ViaCrucis · Jun 12, 2019

gradyll said:
do you have evidence the KJV was not based on the textus receptus? Preferbally not from a liberal scholar point of view but from a respectable seminary. I just double checked the most respectable seminary I know of and they said this:

"Third, when one examines the variations between the Greek text behind the KJV (the Textus Receptus) and the Greek text behind modern translations."

this is from an unbiased source, and from an article that does not even agree with KJV. So by all means provide evidence of the accuracy of this post.

Facts are facts, "liberal" or whatever doesn't play a role in what facts are.

"The origin of the term Textus Receptus comes from the publisher's preface to the 1633 edition produced by Bonaventure and his nephew Abraham Elzevir who were partners in a printing business at Leiden. The preface reads, Textum ergo habes, nunc ab omnibus receptum: in quo nihil immutatum aut corruptum damus, translated as, "so you hold the text, now received by all, in which (is) nothing corrupt." The two words textum and receptum were modified from the accusative to the nominative case to render textus receptus. Over time, this term has been retroactively applied to Erasmus' editions, as his work served as the basis of the others" - Wikipedia

If you want to argue that there was a single, unified text called the "Textus Receptus" which the translators of the KJV used, then the burden of proof is on you.

As far the sources used by the translation committees (take care that "Textus Receptus" here in reference to Stephanus' work is anachronistic.

"For the New Testament, the translators chiefly used the 1598 and 1588/89 Greek editions of Theodore Beza,[136] which also present Beza's Latin version of the Greek and Stephanus's edition of the Latin Vulgate. Both of these versions were extensively referred to, as the translators conducted all discussions amongst themselves in Latin. F.H.A. Scrivener identifies 190 readings where the Authorized Version translators depart from Beza's Greek text, generally in maintaining the wording of the Bishop's Bible and other earlier English translations.[137] In about half of these instances, the Authorized Version translators appear to follow the earlier 1550 Greek Textus Receptus of Stephanus. For the other half, Scrivener was usually able to find corresponding Greek readings in the editions of Erasmus, or in the Complutensian Polyglot. However, in several dozen readings he notes that no printed Greek text corresponds to the English of the Authorized Version, which in these places derives directly from the Vulgate.[138] For example, at John 10:16, the Authorized Version reads "one fold" (as did the Bishops' Bible, and the 16th-century vernacular versions produced in Geneva), following the Latin Vulgate "unum ovile", whereas Tyndale had agreed more closely with the Greek, "one flocke" (μία ποίμνη). The Authorized Version New Testament owes much more to the Vulgate than does the Old Testament; still, at least 80% of the text is unaltered from Tyndale's translation.[139]" - Wikipedia

-CryptoLutheran

ViaCrucis · Jun 12, 2019

timtams said:
If you're going to berate others for poor research, it helps not to get everything wrong yourself. The "received text" refers to the edited, published text, not to manuscripts.

I believe that's exactly what I said.

"Text" doesn't mean manuscript. It never referred to manuscripts. Furthermore, the earliest editions are sixteenth century, not seventeenth. The KJV is translated from "the textus receptus" (primarily the editions of Stephanus, though other editions of the TR were consulted). It consulted various editions of the TR but it is still translated from the TR. The "retrofit" Greek text you're thinking of is probably Scrivener's from the nineteenth century. There is no single "edition" of the TR, but there are not multiple TRs. Your mistakes are understandable; your berating of others for ignorance makes your poor comprehension of the matter inexcusable.

I'm not sure where what you've said here is at any variance with what I've said above. I said there was no single, unified text called the "Textus Receptus" which the KJV translators used--and you agree. Instead the translators used a number of critical texts, such as those of Stephanus (as well as Beza and Erasmus). The term "Textus Receptus" to refer to these set of critical editions is anachronistic. The work of Bonaventure in 1621 is, as far as I know, the earliest "Textus Receptus" as such.

I welcome correction, but I'm just not seeing where what I said is at odds with what you're saying.

-CryptoLutheran

timtams · Jun 12, 2019

ViaCrucis said:
I believe that's exactly what I said.

I'm not sure where what you've said here is at any variance with what I've said above. I said there was no single, unified text called the "Textus Receptus" which the KJV translators used--and you agree.

Instead the translators used a number of critical texts, such as those of Stephanus (as well as Beza and Erasmus). The term "Textus Receptus" to refer to these set of critical editions is anachronistic.

Perhaps I misunderstood your argument, but you wrote:

The translators of the KJV didn't use "The Textus Receptus", they used several critical editions of the Greek New Testament, those of Erasmus, Stephanus, and Beza. These are critical editions, not manuscripts.

That seems to suggest that you believe that the TR consists of manuscripts and you distinguish the TR from the editions of Erasumus, et al., as though they were different. You state they didn't use mss, they used editions, which suggests you equate the TR with mss. But they did use the TR, as they found it in the different editions of it. The editions of Erasmus etc are the TR, and it was used by the KJV translators.

If you go online to look at or read, or buy a copy of the Textus Receptus what are getting isn't some Greek text which the translators of the KJV used, you are looking at is a retrofit Greek text which intentionally uses the variants and readings of the KJV.

It depends what edition you are buying. The only edition for which that would be true is Scrivener's who wished to create a version of the TR using the readings from the various editions that the KJV translators settled on.

The work of Bonaventure in 1621 is, as far as I know, the earliest "Textus Receptus" as such.

It might have been the first to officially use it, I don't know. Some would count Erasmus or even the Complutensian Polyglot as TR editions. Maybe it depends who you ask.

createdtoworship · Jun 12, 2019

ViaCrucis said:
Facts are facts, "liberal" or whatever doesn't play a role in what facts are.

"The origin of the term Textus Receptus comes from the publisher's preface to the 1633 edition produced by Bonaventure and his nephew Abraham Elzevir who were partners in a printing business at Leiden. The preface reads, Textum ergo habes, nunc ab omnibus receptum: in quo nihil immutatum aut corruptum damus, translated as, "so you hold the text, now received by all, in which (is) nothing corrupt." The two words textum and receptum were modified from the accusative to the nominative case to render textus receptus. Over time, this term has been retroactively applied to Erasmus' editions, as his work served as the basis of the others" - Wikipedia

If you want to argue that there was a single, unified text called the "Textus Receptus" which the translators of the KJV used, then the burden of proof is on you.

As far the sources used by the translation committees (take care that "Textus Receptus" here in reference to Stephanus' work is anachronistic.

"For the New Testament, the translators chiefly used the 1598 and 1588/89 Greek editions of Theodore Beza,[136] which also present Beza's Latin version of the Greek and Stephanus's edition of the Latin Vulgate. Both of these versions were extensively referred to, as the translators conducted all discussions amongst themselves in Latin. F.H.A. Scrivener identifies 190 readings where the Authorized Version translators depart from Beza's Greek text, generally in maintaining the wording of the Bishop's Bible and other earlier English translations.[137] In about half of these instances, the Authorized Version translators appear to follow the earlier 1550 Greek Textus Receptus of Stephanus. For the other half, Scrivener was usually able to find corresponding Greek readings in the editions of Erasmus, or in the Complutensian Polyglot. However, in several dozen readings he notes that no printed Greek text corresponds to the English of the Authorized Version, which in these places derives directly from the Vulgate.[138] For example, at John 10:16, the Authorized Version reads "one fold" (as did the Bishops' Bible, and the 16th-century vernacular versions produced in Geneva), following the Latin Vulgate "unum ovile", whereas Tyndale had agreed more closely with the Greek, "one flocke" (μία ποίμνη). The Authorized Version New Testament owes much more to the Vulgate than does the Old Testament; still, at least 80% of the text is unaltered from Tyndale's translation.[139]" - Wikipedia

-CryptoLutheran

just because the textus receptus is not one text does not mean that the KJV was not derived from it.

I think the statements here are unvalidated.
this quote in particular needs citations:

The translators of the KJV didn't use "The Textus Receptus"

Concord1968 · Jun 12, 2019

ViaCrucis said:
Facts are facts, "liberal" or whatever doesn't play a role in what facts are.

"The origin of the term Textus Receptus comes from the publisher's preface to the 1633 edition produced by Bonaventure and his nephew Abraham Elzevir who were partners in a printing business at Leiden. The preface reads, Textum ergo habes, nunc ab omnibus receptum: in quo nihil immutatum aut corruptum damus, translated as, "so you hold the text, now received by all, in which (is) nothing corrupt." The two words textum and receptum were modified from the accusative to the nominative case to render textus receptus. Over time, this term has been retroactively applied to Erasmus' editions, as his work served as the basis of the others" - Wikipedia

If you want to argue that there was a single, unified text called the "Textus Receptus" which the translators of the KJV used, then the burden of proof is on you.

As far the sources used by the translation committees (take care that "Textus Receptus" here in reference to Stephanus' work is anachronistic.

"For the New Testament, the translators chiefly used the 1598 and 1588/89 Greek editions of Theodore Beza,[136] which also present Beza's Latin version of the Greek and Stephanus's edition of the Latin Vulgate. Both of these versions were extensively referred to, as the translators conducted all discussions amongst themselves in Latin. F.H.A. Scrivener identifies 190 readings where the Authorized Version translators depart from Beza's Greek text, generally in maintaining the wording of the Bishop's Bible and other earlier English translations.[137] In about half of these instances, the Authorized Version translators appear to follow the earlier 1550 Greek Textus Receptus of Stephanus. For the other half, Scrivener was usually able to find corresponding Greek readings in the editions of Erasmus, or in the Complutensian Polyglot. However, in several dozen readings he notes that no printed Greek text corresponds to the English of the Authorized Version, which in these places derives directly from the Vulgate.[138] For example, at John 10:16, the Authorized Version reads "one fold" (as did the Bishops' Bible, and the 16th-century vernacular versions produced in Geneva), following the Latin Vulgate "unum ovile", whereas Tyndale had agreed more closely with the Greek, "one flocke" (μία ποίμνη). The Authorized Version New Testament owes much more to the Vulgate than does the Old Testament; still, at least 80% of the text is unaltered from Tyndale's translation.[139]" - Wikipedia

-CryptoLutheran

Basically, the Textus Receptus came from the KJV not the other way around.

createdtoworship · Jun 15, 2019

James Murphy said:
Basically, the Textus Receptus came from the KJV not the other way around.

And this unverified claim also needs citation from a reputable seminary.

Radagast · Jun 15, 2019

gradyll said:
I will mention that the NIV deters from a literal greek translation over 10,000 times.

False. The NIV is actually a very good translation.

gradyll said:
And yes the alexandrian family of manuscripts has a primary codex with missing leaves.

Tell you what. Head over to Codex Sinaiticus - Home (the entire Codex Sinaiticus online) and tell me which NT leaves are missing.

gradyll said:
And yes, again in the sinaiticus there are whiter papryi leaves whiter than the rest

The Codex Sinaiticus is not made from papyrus. It's made from the skins of calves and sheep, scraped thin. The two kinds of skin look slightly different.

ViaCrucis · Jun 15, 2019

timtams said:
That seems to suggest that you believe that the TR consists of manuscripts and you distinguish the TR from the editions of Erasumus, et al., as though they were different. You state they didn't use mss, they used editions, which suggests you equate the TR with mss. But they did use the TR, as they found it in the different editions of it. The editions of Erasmus etc are the TR, and it was used by the KJV translators.

My argument was that the translators weren't taking old manuscripts to make their translation, but were using the critical works of Erasmus, Beza, et al.

-CryptoLutheran

Radagast · Jun 15, 2019

ViaCrucis said:
My argument was that the translators weren't taking old manuscripts to make their translation, but were using the critical works of Erasmus, Beza, et al.

And, in several cases, the Latin Vulgate.

anna ~ grace · Jun 15, 2019

I don't mind the KJVO-ers. I get what they're doing, and why. The changes in phrasing could arguably be said to chip away at things like the Deity of Christ, Scriptural roles for men and women, the reality and severity of Hell, etc.

So, I get it. I like the KJV. And the DRB. And would go for a number of conservatively and literally translated examples to compare and study, if I could. They're all imperfect and limited translations, but some are definitely better than others.

createdtoworship · Jun 15, 2019

Radagast said:
False. The NIV is actually a very good translation.I am away from a computer but here is a quick link

The Byzantine Priority Hypothesis

Tell you what. Head over to Codex Sinaiticus - Home (the entire Codex Sinaiticus online) and tell me which NT leaves are missing.

The Codex Sinaiticus is not made from papyrus. It's made from the skins of calves and sheep, scraped thin. The two kinds of skin look slightly different.

createdtoworship · Jun 15, 2019

Radagast said:
False. The NIV is actually a very good translation.

Tell you what. Head over to Codex Sinaiticus - Home (the entire Codex Sinaiticus online) and tell me which NT leaves are missing.

The Codex Sinaiticus is not made from papyrus. It's made from the skins of calves and sheep, scraped thin. The two kinds of skin look slightly different.

Sorry I am away from a computer but here is a link proving byzantine priority over alexandrian. Feel free to read it. It's very in depth. I will adress your posts later.

The Byzantine Priority Hypothesis

When I started this article, I expected the Byzantine text to come off as clearly and significantly inferior to the other text-types. I was wrong. While I believe additional tests are needed, I cannot help but suspect that Hort was in error, and the Byzantine text has independent value. This does not make me a believer in Byzantine priority, but I am tempted toward a "Sturzian" position, in which the Byzantine text becomes one of the constellation of text-types which must be examined to understand a reading.

timtams · Jun 16, 2019

ViaCrucis said:
My argument was that the translators weren't taking old manuscripts to make their translation, but were using the critical works of Erasmus, Beza, et al.

-CryptoLutheran

And you caused confusion because 1) no one says they translated directly from old mss; and 2) you denied that they translated from the Textus Receptus, when they did. The editions they translated from are all TR texts.

Copperhead · Jun 16, 2019

gradyll said:
do you have evidence the KJV was not based on the textus receptus?

The KJV translators were well accustomed to the Latin Bible and stated so in their comments on the translation. They were not totally loyal to the TR or the Masoretic text either. Even some words used in the KJV were carried over from the Latin. So much so that now they are common English words that portray a meaning that really violates the meaning of the original languages.

For instance, Lucifer in Isaiah 14:12. That is not a name, it is a title. Lucifer in Latin means "light bearer", "morning star", "shining one", etc , which is actually a correct translation of the Hebrew. And some newer translations actually translate the Hebrew literally much to the chagrin of KJV only proponents.

The Latin Bible was the primary bible for almost 1200 years. The Geneva and KJV only a third of that time currently. The LV was common place enough that some words were brought over to the English translations. But to hear the KJV only crowd argue it sometimes. the newer translations are corrupted because they don't have "Lucifer" in them as if Lucifer is the name of Satan and not what the Hebrew says.... "light bearer".

createdtoworship · Jun 16, 2019

Radagast said:
False. The NIV is actually a very good translation.

Tell you what. Head over to Codex Sinaiticus - Home (the entire Codex Sinaiticus online) and tell me which NT leaves are missing.

The Codex Sinaiticus is not made from papyrus. It's made from the skins of calves and sheep, scraped thin. The two kinds of skin look slightly different.

Codex Vaticanus contains 7,579 changes from Textus Receptus

Codex sinaiticus has half leaves missing because they were burning them to keep warm when they found them. It has 9000 changes from Textus receptus.

The above two differ in the gospels over 3000 times with each other.

The condition of the manuscripts are beautiful compared to others of this age and. Makes them highly suspicious.

The evidence of the papyrus manuacripts of the 20th century were not available for the Greek text of Westcott and hort. The papyri evidence is much older than these two, and by and large supports the textus receptus.

NIV uses an alternate type of translation process called dynamic equivalent. So it is not a literal translation on purpose and changes thousand of times from a literal translation.

ralfyman · Jun 17, 2019

They are better than the old ones because they involve updated scholarship and manuscripts that were not available in the distant past.

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

Confessional Lutheran

Well-Known Member

In the grip of grace

In the grip of grace

Confessional Lutheran

Confessional Lutheran

Well-Known Member

In the grip of grace

LCMS Lutheran

In the grip of grace

comes and goes

Confessional Lutheran

comes and goes

Newbie

In the grip of grace

In the grip of grace

Well-Known Member

Newbie

In the grip of grace

Active Member

Similar threads