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

Radagast said:

The modern Greek text lists every major variation in the footnotes, and then gives (using a somewhat cryptic code) the manuscripts and papyri which support each variation. This is a typical page. It starts off giving the inscription as "According to John," but noting in the footnote that Papyrus p66, Papyrus p75, and some other manuscripts have "Gospel according to John":

Click to expand...

What is the date of the modern greek text? And where exactly in the foot note does it mention papyrus numbers?

Copperhead said:

That can be true to some extent, but involving more manuscripts only supports the concept of what the majority of texts say and does not prove the reliability of those texts. Given that the LV was done in the 4th century, it likely had far more Greek texts lying around to compare with than anything we have today, and the LV was the primarily bible for all of world Christianity for about 1200 years. So the distant past may not be an accurate statement on your part. We do have more observable manuscripts and fragments than were available a few hundred years ago, but it would be a real stretch to take that and apply it to the first 500 years AD. There was a reason that there was a period in between called the "dark ages". We are far ahead of anything in that period, but maybe not so much compared to the period before the dark ages.

And "updated" scholarship may not be all that it is cracked up to be. Ever hear of the Jesus Project? Supposed "scholars" all sitting around deciding who Jesus really was and what Jesus really stated based solely on their academic prowess to judge the evidence. Scholarship may not be something one would want to hang their hat on, as there is a lot of bias in academic circles. Even in the hard sciences.

There are many examples of where even modern translations have problems. There are also many examples of where the older translations like the Geneva and KJV didn't get things quite right. But at least with those older translations, they have been around for a lengthy period of time and those errors are well documented. With the newer translations, so many are coming out all the time so there really isn't any way to accurately judge what they got right or wrong before they are in the hands of many thousands of people and folks are basing their ideas on what those modern translations are stating.

Click to expand...

ralfyman said:

According to the prefaces of the NRSV and NABRE, the newly discovered manuscripts gave translators context to several passages that they had difficulty understanding, leading to dozens of corrections mentioned in the footnotes.

Finally, the updated scholarship refers to NRSV, NABRE, etc. You should not use the Jesus Project as representative of that.

Click to expand...

James Murphy said:

Aren't most modern translations based on the Nestle-Aland?

Click to expand...

GreekOrthodox said:

From wikipedia:
For the Old Testament, the translators used a text originating in the editions of the Hebrew Rabbinic Bible by Daniel Bomberg (1524/5),[132] but adjusted this to conform to the Greek LXX or Latin Vulgate in passages to which Christian tradition had attached a Christological interpretation.[133] For example, the Septuagint reading "They pierced my hands and my feet" was used in Psalm 22:16 (vs. the Masoretes' reading of the Hebrew "like lions my hands and feet"[134]). Otherwise, however, the Authorized Version is closer to the Hebrew tradition than any previous English translation – especially in making use of the rabbinic commentaries, such as Kimhi, in elucidating obscure passages in the Masoretic Text;[135] earlier versions had been more likely to adopt LXX or Vulgate readings in such places. Following the practice of the Geneva Bible, the books of 1 Esdras and 2 Esdras in the medieval Vulgate Old Testament were renamed 'Ezra' and 'Nehemiah'; 3 Esdras and 4 Esdras in the Apocrypha being renamed '1 Esdras' and '2 Esdras'.

Click to expand...

Dr. Jack said:

Nestle's first Greek text was a combination of the works of Tischendorf, Westcott and Hort, and Weymouth. The principles that led to the critical text were greatly advanced by Westcott and Hort.

To say that the modern Greek Text is not the product of Westcott and Hort, would be equivalent to saying the TR is not the product of Erasmus.

Click to expand...

Radagast said:

The modern Greek text is quite different from what Westcott and Hort produced, and reflects more than a century of additional scholarship and correction.



The claim was that the KJV used the Vulgate, which is true.

Click to expand...

Are Byzantine manuscripts more reliable? Are the manuscripts behind the NKJV more reliable (byzantine)?
Someone set out to disprove the authority of the byzantine, only to be persuaded the other way, due to his study of it:
summary of non partison study:
The Byzantine Priority Hypothesis
The Byzantine Priority Hypothesis

-----------

I wanted to include a section of an email I sent to a seminary professor as well, some of it is unedited, but you get the gist of it:

I am a KJV, NKJV believer myself.
I however ran across another version of late, that I can't seem to find anything wrong with, as far as the idea and motive behind this translation. ( a few sites, actually....majoritytext.com and pfrs.org. So these are two separate translation attempts it would seem at making a modern majority text translation (like Hodges and Wallace did?), but with some revamping of course.
but I don't know if you have heard of the EMTV translation (Majority Text Translation),
Majority Text.com Letter From The Translator
It is based off of a translation done by Zane Hodges, and modified and updated.
https://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/te...ament_greek/text/wallace-majoritytext-gtj.pdf
I didn't like the zane hodges one due to it's modern language type of read,
but this version sort of does the same thing, just less.
also this version that is based more on the Byzantine text:- has it's own set of arguments that the majority text is flawed: http://www.pfrs.org/PFRV/preface.pdf
his version is under way but it is based here:
The Pristine Faith Restoration Society - NT Translation Index
here are some links In my file about these type of texts, feel free to read through and see what you think, and if they answer the question.

I certainly understand busy schedules, so please put it on the end of your list and address when you have time, or don't (if you never free up).
but if you do see any of the links in error, or outright wrong, let me know....I will look into it. But so far these are the links I have for my majority text and Byzantine text folders of links to study:
MOVING AWAY FROM PRESERVED SCRIPTURE: EXAMINING THE HODGES-FARSTAD MAJORITY TEXT
http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/gtj/04-1_119.pdf
The Majority Text and the Original Text: Are They Identical? | Bible.org
Some Second Thoughts on the Majority Text | Bible.org
-------------------

I realize these are not easy topics, and there are few, in fact that I have trusted these type of questions to.

GreekOrthodox said:

Sure thing Gradyll. I was trying to find a more scholarly source but Wikipedia had the basics

King James Version - Wikipedia

I'm not a textual scholar so I'm working off of my general knowledge.

You mention in #203 (not sure how to link multiple postings) the Byzantine majority, which is the Greek Orthodox Church's official text, not any English translation.

Click to expand...

so again saying the LXX influenced the KJV is innacurate. They consulted the LXX in only very select verses according to your source that "Christian tradition had attached a Christological interpretation." Now I am not sure how many that is. And it does not really say. But it sounds like just a few. It followed the massoretic text in most of the OT passages, that is clear.

GreekOrthodox said:

Morning,
Maybe we're talking past each other here. I agree that the KJV translation of the OT relied on the Masoretic Hebrew text for the translation, and the translators used the LXX for certain passages or words. I think what has confused me is that I have inferred (and correct me if I have inferred this incorrectly and I apologize) that you have argued the LXX and the Vulgate were of no consequence to the KJV translators. My argument has been that they did use alternative sources for some phrases and words (which you have agreed with). - Psalti Chrysostom

Click to expand...

yeah I don't know for sure if they did consult the vulgate. I believe they did consult the LXX. Wikipedia is not the best source for technical things. But it could be accurate on this, I don't know. But if it is true that the KJV translators consulted the vulgate, it would be in very few places. Much less than 1 percent. So accordingly the vulgate "was of no significant consequence" to the KJV translators.

Dr. Jack said:

The issue that keeps being presented to me (in this matter) is that the KJ translators violated the rules by using texts other than the Bishops Bible. The problem is, there was NO such rule given to the KJ translators.

Rule One was:
"The ordinary Bible read in the Church, commonly called the Bishops Bible, to be followed, and as little altered as the Truth of the original will permit."

In the OT the translators followed mainly the Second Rabbinic Bible, edited by Jacob Ben Chayyim, except for the text of Joshua 21:36-37 and Nehemiah 7:68; where they followed the First Rabbinic Bible, edited by Felix Pratensis in 1517-1518.

Did they refer to the Vulgate? Why not? If God directed them to a few words from the Latin, or even to the Greek LXX? Does that pollute the entire translation based mainly upon a superior text for both the Old and New Testaments? Is this not swatting at a gnat to poison the waters of a superior well?

Click to expand...

what is your source for this information? I am not saying it is correct or wrong. But I know that there has been a lot of quoting of wikipedia lately, and wikipedia is publicly edited by non professionals all day long. It is a quick source of information in a pinch, but it should not be relied on for technical study. I am guilty of using wikipedia in the last few posts, but it should really be avoided.

gradyll said:

What is the date of the modern greek text? And where exactly in the foot note does it mention papyrus numbers?

Click to expand...

hold on. Originally you said that the modern greek text was the source of modern bibles. And now you are saying it is revised every few years. So are those translations wrong? In need of revision? Are you sure this is the avenue you wish to pursue?

Dr. Jack said:

"A small number of textual changes in the most current edition were incorporated in the 28th edition of the Nestle-Aland,[14] published in 2012. Papyri 117-127 were used in this edition."
Papyrus 66 - Wikipedia

Click to expand...

again please refrain from using wikipedia. I know it seems petty, but wikipedia is literally edited by any one and anyone who decides to edit it. You can literally click on the page and edit it yourself. And so can I. So that is not really an authority that should be used. See I think part of the problem is how we research things. See wikipedia for example is totally biased against creationism, and nearly every article talking about creationism, will depict the scopes trial and try to paint creationism in a negative light. What they refuse to point out is that intelligent design is not creationism. And creationism is not intelligent design. See ID proponents are simply theistic, they are not necessarily christian. While creationists tend to debate using Biblical texts. So here is an example where wikipedia would need updating. I guess I should get on that huh? But the point is this. I am not an expert, and neither are you. So quoting a website that is open source, and can be edited by non experts is not the greatest source of information. So pardon me if I question sources. But it is important that we know where our information is coming from. I do believe most seminaries are partial toward the alexandrian texts, simply because that is where the money lies. The big seminaries can get royalty kick backs from publishing a new bible every few years. Dallas seminary for example can potentially get royalties from websites that use it's "net bible." So there is big money involved with newer translations, so someone like me coming in and saying that the alexandrian texts are frauds potentially, missing leaves, incomplete etc is taking money out of the establishment. And they don't like that. So it would pay them to write wikipedia articles, especially when it's free, and they don't necessarily need qualifications to write it. Or true sources.

Radagast said:

It is.

Indeed it is, although primarily those revisions alter the footnotes. Occasionally, in the case of variant readings, there's a change in which reading goes into the main text.

And if you look at very recent English translations, there are likewise sometimes changes in which reading goes into the main text and which one goes into a footnote.

Click to expand...

so you basically don't have a solid translation, at least one that you feel is finished to translate into a modern translation. So basically all modern translations are based off of outdated material. Thanks for confirming this.

Give me a break. I was linking to the Wikipedia articles on p66 and p75 just to remind people what they are. Feel free to look up the details in a book on your own.

If you're trying to argue that p66 and p75 don't exist, that's just silly.

Click to expand...

I wouldn't use wikipedia for anything in a technical debate. It makes it look like you don't have official sources.

In fact, most newer translations are non-profit.

Click to expand...

Modern translations charge royalties to gideon's international for distributing them. This is why they originally changed to NKJV, but NKJV changed owners and they did not renew contract (I presume because of less in royalties), so Gideon's adopted an ESV version that actually had all the missing verses that the textus receptus has in them! Pretty crazy article here on that information:

The Gideons and the ESV

You still haven't provided any evidence for these false and ridiculous claims.

Click to expand...

This is common knowledge. here is the citation that there is missing manuscripts:
Tischendorf Found Treasure in Trash

as far as the fraudulent aspect of the sinaiticus:

and in another thread is more validation:
The Codex Sinaiticus is a Fake!
in that thread also is citations for the fact that sinaiticus had whitened sections of the manuscript which looked newer than other portions. Also indicating fraud.

but basically a forger had manuscripts that no one had available at the time, then after declaring he forged the manuscript sinaiticus, they appeared in the sinaiticus! Books of barnabus. That is what sold me on the forgery.

in this citation is the allegation of fraud:
kjvonly2: Sinaiticus may really be a forgery after all...

and here is another work on it:
https://www.amazon.com/Forging-Codex-Sinaiticus-Bill-Cooper-ebook/dp/B01E1SUPRO

I repeat an earlier question of mine: which New Testament "leaf" at www.codexsinaiticus.org do you think is "missing"?

Click to expand...

again it is common knowledge that tichendorf did not get all the manuscipts. See above.

Dr. Jack said:

It was only to supply a date of publication of the NA 28.

Click to expand...

oh, thats fine. What do you think of this article I posted earlier. Gideons formally adopts the ESV as their one modern translation for mass hand outs, but before doing so they use a version of ESV that includes all the missing verses that the textus receptus had that the sinaiticus and vaticanus was missing, the long ending of mark etc,

The Gideons and the ESV

I like that, I think they should pursue more of this type of thing.

Radagast said:

This is hardly a technical debate. And, I say again, if you deny p66 and p75 exist, that's silly.



You didn't answer my question. Which New Testament pages do you think are missing?



That's just nonsense.

Click to expand...

so you can't disprove the sinaiticus fraud allegation I posted with several resources to familiarlize yourself with it. And I hope you realize that you were wrong originally when you said that there were not missing manuscripts, so I proved that error in your posts as well. So anyway let me know if you desire to talk more on the sinaiticus fraud, I have plenty of evidence to provide. But most likely my last post scared you out of this debate. And that is fine. But it is important to familiarize ourself with what others believe about your precious modern translations, and have a good argument against why they are true or in error. Simply saying "that's just nonsense" reveals you either don't know anything about it and can't say either way, or your too lazy to read the sites posted, or both. So anyway I know that this is emotional for you, I get it. I get protective over my translations too. But don't run from all criticisms of your modern translations as that is not a healthy mindset. Running from criticism is not a good thing. Most likely you will be stronger in the long run if you can actually debate against something like a "sinaiticus forgery allegation."