Changes to the Word of God seen in other Bible Versions

Isilwen said:

I thankfully have the 1984 version. It was my first ever Bible given to me by my ex-wife. It is a Men's Devotional version.

Click to expand...

That version was probably too ecumenical, the (unnecessary) translation changes are probably sales driven.

biblelesson said:

That's not true. You are being facetious.

Click to expand...

People have done that to me in a discussion before, so it is true.

biblelesson said:

Correcting my own comment: I meant to say over 400 years ago!

Click to expand...

Helpful to know since there was a significant update to the structure of the KJV 200 years ago.

biblelesson said:

Give an example!

Click to expand...

Love does not keep record of wrongs, and it was a while ago.

biblelesson said:

I was making reference to 1611. But here is a history of bible translations I found! https://www.tcseagles.org/faculty/n...les/Timeline_of_Bible_Translation_History.pdf

Click to expand...

Likewise, you may find the following link of interest.
A King James Vocabulary Lesson | Religious Studies Center

Michael Collum said:

That version was probably too ecumenical, the (unnecessary) translation changes are probably sales driven.

Click to expand...

For me now, it's more sentimental as it was my first Bible.

Isilwen said:

For me now, it's more sentimental as it was my first Bible.

Click to expand...

That makes sense. I have a lot of the bible memorized in that version so sometimes I google a phrase and it doesn't pop up anymore. Oh well.

biblelesson said:

Have you ever wondered if those who made the changes that we see in various versions of the new bibles that came after the King James version are guilty of changing God's word?

The chart on the website below shows how some of those changes have been made. I personally stay away from these versions and only read the King James Bible.

What do you think?

I could not post the charts from the site, but I have provided the links:

Bible versions and the preeminence of Christ

Various Contradictions and Omissions in Bible Translations

Click to expand...

I agree that the KJV is best. What I found is that once Christ opens your eyes and ears to see, the KJV best describes the Spiritual truth of Christ.

Isilwen said:

I thankfully have the 1984 version. It was my first ever Bible given to me by my ex-wife. It is a Men's Devotional version.

Click to expand...

My first NIV (which I still have) is dated 1978.

biblelesson said:

Have you ever wondered if those who made the changes that we see in various versions of the new bibles that came after the King James version are guilty of changing God's word?

The chart on the website below shows how some of those changes have been made. I personally stay away from these versions and only read the King James Bible.

What do you think?

I could not post the charts from the site, but I have provided the links:

Bible versions and the preeminence of Christ

Various Contradictions and Omissions in Bible Translations

Click to expand...

Depends on each change, omission etc. Not many are essential, most are not for any particular agenda.

I grew up on the King James, memorized many verses from it, and love it still, but it does have not only archaic language, but some otherwise hard to understand translations that other versions make easier to follow. I read the NIV probably most, because it has a lot of differences with the KJV, so that I get a different point-of-view, but mine is the 1977 edition which was before they began the uni-gender versions of the NIV. Several things make more sense to me now because of the apparently different-for-difference's-sake approach it seems the translators had, which is not to say they were beyond bias or even agenda, but who is?

As for those who think the KJV is more accurate than the originals, I pity them, and wonder what they think Spanish speaking people, etc, should use. Should we have been translating from the KJV all these years?

And as for the lady who said that if the KJV was good enough for St. Paul, it is good enough for her, well...

biblelesson said:

What resource can you point to that shows that the King James bible have been edited? I did not know that.

Click to expand...

A couple of things. First, the 1611 edition of the KJV had marginal notes. Meaning the translators themselves were not always sure of how a reading should be rendered. Second, the edition you likely have is the 1769 Blaney revision. Mostly this corrected spelling but also introduced some changes to the text.

You can still buy the original text for the 1611 KJV, though I am not sure why you would. Its is really tough in places to read and you would need to know archaic spellings of words. Stick with the revision you have.

The KJV is a monument to 17th century scholarship and prose. I know the KJV very well as we still use the translation liturgically. I don't have a problem with folks that still want to use it as their primary translation. However, it is not without its problems. Besides the English our knowledge of ancient koine Greek si so much greater than in 1600. Back then scholars though it was a "Holy Ghost" version of greek. My advice is if you can and do read the KJV then keep using it. If you are struggling then I would recommend the ESV or the NASB 1995. There is a 2020 version of the NASB but I haven't had a chance to really dig into it. Please don't succumb to the KJV only crowd.

biblelesson said:

How would I be able to determine what mistakes or errors were possibly made over 400 years ago? I wasn't there, but God was and I believe God knew what He was doing with His servants.

Click to expand...

What is the difference between those translators and those working on translations today? In seminary I had to translate the Gospel of John. Does that mean God didn't know what He is doing with me? There is someone on CF who has worked on a published translation. Does that mean that person isn't a servant of God?

Most of us respect the KJV translation and we've memorized verses and passages in KJV. That doesn't mean that we recognize problems with source material, the Textus Receptus, which was only based on a handful of manuscripts. We have a much larger group of manuscripts to work with and we're updating the English to meet the modern language. For example, the Greek Orthodox Patriarchal Edition is based solely on Greek texts that would not have been available to Erasmus as they are from only two locations, Mount Athos and Constantinople.