Changes to the Word of God seen in other Bible Versions

Akita Suggagaki

Well-Known Member
Jul 20, 2018
6,714
4,885
69
Midwest
✟278,829.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
The fact remains that the Authorized Version of the Bible (called the King James Version) is the one that has more to recommend it than any other version.

That is not a fact at all.

Almost all scholars agree that the New American Standard Bible (NASB) gets the crown for being the most accurate English Bible translation.
The 5 Most Accurate Bible Translations | Faith Founded on Fact
Which is the best Bible translation?
Which Is The Best Bible Translation To Read? (Top 12 Compared)



18d0fd9f5c7d3a20cdc65cd9ebf4253b.gif

Bible Versions and Types - Word for Word (Literal), Thought for Thought, and Paraphrase
 
  • Winner
Reactions: pescador
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,138
33,258
✟583,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
That is not a fact at all.

Almost all scholars agree that the New American Standard Bible (NASB) gets the crown for being the most accurate English Bible translation.

Well, the NASB is a very reputable translation, much better than most of the other translations of fairly recent origin.

However, it is not as elegant, beautiful, or inspirational as the KJV, does not have half the familiar wording (over 100 phrases or terms that we all use in ordinary conversation from time to time, are from the KJV), and it is the KJV that is the most widely-used and most influential translation in the world. The KJV is the version of the Bible that won most non-Europeans to the faith.

The NASB, for all that can be said in praise of that translation, does not come up to the KJV in any of these respects.




 
Upvote 0

pescador

Wise old man
Supporter
Nov 29, 2011
8,530
4,776
✟498,844.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
The fact remains that the Authorized Version of the Bible (called the King James Version) is the one that has more to recommend it than any other version.

But if a person does not have even a high school education and cannot understand parts of the KJV, then he can pick up one of those publications that lists four different versions side by side in parallel columns. Using it, he can easily make a variety of comparisons as he reads along.

But the claims that are often made against the KJV...that it's outdated, cannot be understood, or is not accurate, are not persuasive. There is NO modern language translation that is free of potentially confusing phrases, expressions, or words. There is NO modern language translation that is 100% factually correct and has no "errors in translation'' that might mislead the reader.

The reader gives up much more than he gains by abandoning the KJV for one of those homely translations that were intended for people with an 8th grade or lower reading level.

Not that your post is obviously biased, but...

The KJV was based on a limited set of source documents and a limited knowledge of what the culture of the Biblical times was actually like.

Regarding the attitude that a person who does not have even a high school education and cannot understand parts of the KJV... The KJV version was created for all to read, written in the common language of that era, a version of Englysh that nobody uses any more, i.e., it is obsolete. If you're going by reading levels, those are created by computer algorithms to analyze modern languages and are irrelevant regarding the KJV Englyshe.

You wrote that there is NO modern language translation that is free of potentially confusing phrases, expressions, or words. There is NO modern language translation that is 100% factually correct and has no "errors in translation'' that might mislead the reader. That applies to the KJV, even more so. It is loaded with confusing phrases, expressions, and words. It is not 100% factually correct (whatever that means) and has errors in translation that confuse the reader.

Your statement that "The reader gives up much more than he gains by abandoning the KJV for one of those homely translations that were intended for people with an 8th grade or lower reading level" doesn't even deserve a comment!

I have several questions for you...

If the KJV Englyshe is so clear and understandable, forsooth, why does thou not write in that archaic Englyshe in all your correspondence (and/or your speech)? You obviously write in modern English because you want to be understood, a goal shared by modern translations. Do you want people to understand what you write or not?

The KJV translators gave many alternative readings of some of the text, so obviously they didn't think that what they created was 100% reliable and reliable.

There are instances where words have been added in the KJV that aren't in the earliest and best manuscripts. A perfect example is Romans 8:1, "There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit." The earliest and best manuscripts don't have this phrase; it was added by a zealous scribe. The same can be said for the "long ending" of Mark and the story of the woman caught in adultery.

Luke 14:8-12, KJV...
8 When thou art bidden of any man to a wedding, sit not down in the highest room; lest a more honourable man than thou be bidden of him;

9 And he that bade thee and him come and say to thee, Give this man place; and thou begin with shame to take the lowest room.

10 But when thou art bidden, go and sit down in the lowest room; that when he that bade thee cometh, he may say unto thee, Friend, go up higher: then shalt thou have worship in the presence of them that sit at meat with thee.

11 For whosoever exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.

12 Then said he also to him that bade him, When thou makest a dinner or a supper, call not thy friends, nor thy brethren, neither thy kinsmen, nor thy rich neighbours; lest they also bid thee again, and a recompence be made thee.

What are all those numbers? They're not in the earliest manuscripts.

Verse 8: there were not upper and lower rooms. It was one room.
Verse 9: what does "Give this man place" mean? Was it crowded?
Verse 10: "then shalt thou have worship in the presence of them that sit at meat with thee." Were they worshipping at dinner? Over meat??

Obviously, none of this is accurate. Here is a far, far better translation...

“When someone invites you to a wedding feast, do not take the place of honor, for a person more distinguished than you may have been invited. If so, the host who invited both of you will come and say to you, ‘Give this person your seat.’ Then, humiliated, you will have to take the least important place. But when you are invited, take the lowest place, so that when your host comes, he will say to you, ‘Friend, move up to a better place.’ Then you will be honored in the presence of all the other guests. For all those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted.”

It's written in clear, understandable modern English; it's meant to be understood by the readers. The languages of the Bible sources are ancient Hebrew, Aramaic, and Koine Greek, all simple, clear languages, meant to be understood by everyone.

Also, how many unicorns have you come across? They're mentioned nine times in your "accurate" KJV.

My conclusion is that you and others who laud the KJV want to feel exalted, holy, and self-important, not because of what the Bible text actually communicates, but because you think that God (who came to earth as an impoverished carpenter) doesn't want His words to be clearly communicated and clearly understood by everyone. It's the same thinking that caused the church to communicate in Latin for centuries: only a select few can understand what is truly meant, so it must be interpreted and explained by (supposedly) "learned" people.

Finally, the KJV is just a translation; it is not the pure Word of God.
 
Upvote 0

pescador

Wise old man
Supporter
Nov 29, 2011
8,530
4,776
✟498,844.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Well, the NASB is a very reputable translation, much better than most of the other translations of fairly recent origin.

However, it is not as elegant, beautiful, or inspirational as the KJV, does not have half the familiar wording (over 100 phrases or terms that we all use in ordinary conversation from time to time, are from the KJV), and it is the KJV that is the most widely-used and most influential translation in the world. The KJV is the version of the Bible that won most non-Europeans to the faith.

The NASB, for all that can be said in praise of that translation, does not come up to the KJV in any of these respects.

Neither ancient Hebrew, Aramaic, or Koine Greek are "beautiful languages", so the flowery, pompous language of the KJV is inaccurate in that regard.

"the KJV that is the most widely-used and most influential translation in the world" is wrong. The NIV is the best selling and most widely used translation. There is no evidence that the KJV is the most influential translation in the world, since the Bible texts have been translated into many, many languages.

What is your evidence that "The KJV is the version of the Bible that won most non-Europeans to the faith"? Does thou thinketh that those people that haveth not a clear knowledge of Englyshe were "won" by language as shown above? It obviously had to be reinterpreted (clearly) by someone into either their native language or modern English.

Stop worshiping a translation!
 
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,138
33,258
✟583,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Not that your post is obviously biased, but...
I have a preference. Other people have different preferences. There's no need for insinuating anything unpleasant about that. And I explained why I find the KJV to be preferable.

Regarding the attitude that a person who does not have even a high school education and cannot understand parts of the KJV...
Those reading levels that were referred are the actual ones as determined by the people who study such things. I did not make up any of it or guess at it.

The KJV version was created for all to read, written in the common language of that era, a version of Englysh that nobody uses any more, i.e., it is obsolete.
That's a familiar complaint, but I consider it to be mistaken. Yes, here or there we find some archaic terms but a simple explanation takes care of that. Most of the Bible, in the KJV version, is quite readable. Meanwhile, it is plain nonsense to claim or imagine that the various modern language versions have taken care of all terms and wording that can be misunderstood. They most certainly have not.

If the KJV Englyshe is so clear and understandable, forsooth, why does thou not write in that archaic Englyshe in all your correspondence (and/or your speech)?
Guess what? I understood just what you asked me there.

So much for your idea that the wording of the translation needs to be updated in order to be understood. ;)
 
Upvote 0

pescador

Wise old man
Supporter
Nov 29, 2011
8,530
4,776
✟498,844.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
I have a preference. Other people have different preferences. There's no need for insinuating anything unpleasant about that. And I explained why I find the KJV to be preferable.


Those reading levels that were referred are the actual ones as determined by the people who study such things. I did not make up any of it or guess at it.


That's a familiar complaint, but I consider it to be mistaken. Yes, here or there we find some archaic terms but a simple explanation takes care of that. Most of the Bible, in the KJV version, is quite readable. Meanwhile, it is plain nonsense to claim or imagine that the various modern language versions have taken care of all terms and wording that can be misunderstood. They most certainly have not.


Guess what? I understood just what you asked me there.

So much for your idea that the wording of the translation needs to be updated in order to be understood. ;)

Simply because you (and obviously I) can make sense of early 17th Century Englyshe doesn't mean that it's understood by everyone. Do you think that God is the author of confusion?

The Bible texts were written to be clearly understood and that principle should be retained in all translation work. I strongly feel that the Bible should be read and, as much as possible, clearly understood. Neither you nor I write in language that is confusing and out-of-date, so why shouldn't the Bible translation be written that way?

If it makes you feel somehow special or holy to use an archaic translation, then go ahead, but it's wrong to impose a rule that if it's not written in an archaic language it's not from God. Why do you think that Jesus was a carpenter and not a Pharisee?
 
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,138
33,258
✟583,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Simply because you (and obviously I) can make sense of early 17th Century Englyshe doesn't mean that it's understood by everyone.
And as has been pointed out before, that observation applies to all other translations as well.

If it makes you feel somehow special or holy to use an archaic translation, then go ahead,
Don't be insulting. I stated my reasons for thinking the KJV to be superior to competing versions. You didn't seem to want to hear any of them, but flattering myself had nothing to do with any of the reasons I listed.
 
Upvote 0

pescador

Wise old man
Supporter
Nov 29, 2011
8,530
4,776
✟498,844.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
And as has been pointed out before, that observation applies to all other translations as well.


Don't be insulting. I stated my reasons for thinking the KJV to be superior to competing versions. You didn't seem to want to hear any of them, but flattering myself had nothing to do with any of the reasons I listed.

Go ahead and use whatever translation you want but please stop claiming that the one that you use is better than the one I and/or others use. There is no basis for that in fact or for any other reason. In case you're not aware, it has the ring of "I'm better and smarter than you are".
 
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

Akita Suggagaki

Well-Known Member
Jul 20, 2018
6,714
4,885
69
Midwest
✟278,829.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Well, the NASB is a very reputable translation, much better than most of the other translations of fairly recent origin.

However, it is not as elegant, beautiful, or inspirational as the KJV, does not have half the familiar wording (over 100 phrases or terms that we all use in ordinary conversation from time to time, are from the KJV), and it is the KJV that is the most widely-used and most influential translation in the world. The KJV is the version of the Bible that won most non-Europeans to the faith.

The NASB, for all that can be said in praise of that translation, does not come up to the KJV in any of these respects.

I am more interested in the reliability of source documents.
 
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,138
33,258
✟583,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
I am more interested in the reliability of source documents.
Sure, that does matter, but because no alternate translation is without some of the same problems that critics of the KJV raise--and the translations that they prefer are inferior to the KJV in a variety of additional ways...

...the arguments I hear all the time about why the KJV needs to be replaced aren't persuasive.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: 1watchman
Upvote 0

Akita Suggagaki

Well-Known Member
Jul 20, 2018
6,714
4,885
69
Midwest
✟278,829.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Sure, that does matter, but because no alternate translation is without some of the same problems that critics of the KJV raise--and the translations that they prefer are inferior to the KJV in a variety of additional ways...

...the arguments I hear all the time about why the KJV needs to be replaced aren't persuasive.
The KJV is based on the linage of the Byzantine Text which, if I recall correctly, became one of the more corrupt texts through the centuries. Newer translations utilize the Alexandrian text which is usually considered most faithful in preserving the original. But that history is sketchy to me. But I do know that Bruce Mezger's work on all this is most impressive.
See starting on page XV.
I. History of the transmission of New Testament Texts.

Metzger, Bruce - A Textual Commentary On The Greek New Testament.pdf [PDF|TXT]

Wikipedia agrees.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexandrian_text-type
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

miamited

Ted
Supporter
Oct 4, 2010
13,243
6,313
Seneca SC
✟705,807.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Hi @Albion,

The KJV is the version of the Bible that won most non-Europeans to the faith.

So, would that be another of your speculative assumptions along with the KJV being the one that has 'more to recommend it' than any other? Can you give us some facts to support that statement?

As I've often said, I can't just go around saying that I'm the Queen of England and get to sleep at Buckingham Palace tonight.

God bless,
Ted
 
  • Haha
Reactions: pescador
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,138
33,258
✟583,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Hi @Albion,

So, would that be another of your speculative assumptions along with the KJV being the one that has 'more to recommend it' than any other? Can you give us some facts to support that statement?
The Bible societies in the UK and US were the most active in an earlier time and, of course, the UK owned half of the world during the colonial era, bringing its values and customs to those colonial subjects. The American Bible Society, for example, used the KJV and distributed over two million copies in a single year.

While there are certainly other European nations that owned territory overseas, even in some of these the English-speaking evangelistic organizations and Bible publishing houses were more active than the clergy, etc. associated with the home countries of those colonies.

I can't just go around saying that I'm the Queen of England and get to sleep at Buckingham Palace tonight.
I'd agree that you probably ought not attempt that.
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
Reactions: 1watchman
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

pescador

Wise old man
Supporter
Nov 29, 2011
8,530
4,776
✟498,844.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Why is it so difficult to accept that the King James Bible, a.k.a., the Authorized Version, is just one of many translations? Each of them has its own translation philosophy and rules. I'm of the opinion that the Authorized Version is lauded because it was authorized by the King and thereby became the "official" translation of the English-speaking world. To many people it is THE BIBLE; any other translation is not authentic, accurate or genuine.

Of course, many people, starting with the Pilgrims, don't buy into this propaganda. Bible translations are, by definition, not the originals, and are based on the best rendition into the language and the culture of the readers. => The culture that produced the KJV has long since vanished. <=

The King James Bible is a translation, one of many. Despite what some people espouse, it is not the Bible. And, since I live in the United States in the 21st Century, I prefer a Bible based on 1) the best manuscripts (Biblical and other period documents), 2) expansive knowledge of the source languages, and 3) the meaning as clearly understood by current readers. If I lived in early 17th Century England I might prefer the Authorized Version, but I don't.

Finally, if the KJV is so perfect, why don't those who swear by its superiority speak/read/write in that vernacular? Or maybe it's not so superior after all!!
 
Upvote 0

pescador

Wise old man
Supporter
Nov 29, 2011
8,530
4,776
✟498,844.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Sure, that does matter, but because no alternate translation is without some of the same problems that critics of the KJV raise--and the translations that they prefer are inferior to the KJV in a variety of additional ways...

...the arguments I hear all the time about why the KJV needs to be replaced aren't persuasive.

To you perhaps, but not to others.

When you say that the translations that they prefer are inferior to the KJV in a variety of additional ways, can you give any examples? Or is this just more of the same "the KJV is the best because... it's the best" (with no explanation or examples).

And what do you mean by "replaced"? Are you afraid that somebody might take away your beloved translation??
 
Upvote 0

miamited

Ted
Supporter
Oct 4, 2010
13,243
6,313
Seneca SC
✟705,807.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Hi @Albion

The Bible societies in the UK and US were the most active in an earlier time

Ok, let's say that I accept that statement as true without pushing for supporting evidence.

The American Bible Society, for example, used the KJV and distributed over two million copies in a single year.

Let's say that I accept that statement also, without asking for any supporting evidence.

MA_00133791_rjkcxe.jpg


the UK owned half of the world during the colonial era

The above map shows the colonies of the British Empire in 1837. Somehow 'half' seems just a bit hyperbolic. Unmarred by British rule would be all of the U.S. and pretty much all of Mexico, Central America and South America. Greenland, practically the whole of Europe aside from Great Britain itself and Scotland were free from British rule. All of Russia, and let's be honest here, Russia's a pretty big place with lots of people. Most of Africa and quite a lot of Asia remained free from British colonization. The middle east, for the most part, never fell to the whims of British rule.

Some people actually believe that in 1913 the British empire held sway over 412 million people. At the time, that was only 23% of the world's population. That's quite a ways from half. I mean, 46% or even 42% might let you get by with speaking in hyperbole that the British Empire ruled over 'half' the world, but 23%? Now, I'm sure you consider the Huns of Europe and the unwashed of Asia and the ignoramuses of Russia and the dasterdly American revolters as not being a part of the 'world' that you live in, but still, 23%? And who would even consider that the foolish Catholic masses in Mexico and Central and South America would ever be considered as a part of the 'world'? So, there is a way in which one could use speculative assumptions to support your claim. Which I suppose is what you do.

Now, how many 'bible societies' were active in the UK and the U.S.? Did you know that the American Bible Society is actually the group that brought us the 'Good News' translation of the Scriptures? They seemed to not care for the KJV translation of the Scriptures and so sponsored a translation of their own. They also publish the CEV translation. I'm not sure I'd be using a reference to the American Bible Society to support your speculative assumptions.

As has been pointed out, the NASB is the hands down most highly regarded as 'accurate' translation by 'most' scholars.

So, I understand, that for some reason it is important to you to support the KJV translation, and you are free to do so. However, speculative assumptions, do not factual data make.

Please understand that I served as a Gideon for a number of years and they are so sold on the KJV translation as being the 'only true' translation of the Scriptures. I used to go into fellowships for a presentation where I was told that if I didn't carry a KJV translation of the Scriptures, that I wouldn't be allowed in the door. So trust me, I've dealt with this issue. As I see it, and I believe as God also sees it, the best translation of His words is the one that opens the seeking heart to the truth of His words. That can be one of many reputable and reliable translations. The KJV is just one of them, and yes, there was a time that it was pretty much the only translation available to most people. Of course, when we look back before the KJV, there were other translation that, in their day, were considered the most reliable and available to most people. The world existed for 1600 years without the KJV translation. Kind of makes you wonder how people got saved in those days!

God bless,
Ted
 
  • Winner
Reactions: pescador
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,138
33,258
✟583,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
The above map shows the colonies of the British Empire in 1837. Somehow 'half' seems just a bit hyperbolic.
It was a generalization, one that is often by historians and others. But you can call it 40% if you prefer. Or 61.3% if you'd rather. (sigh)

The point remains that the Bible societies and evangelistic associations in the English speaking world were especially active throughout the globe in those days in spreading the Gospel, using the KJV as their version of Scripture.

What's more, your map shows only official British colonies (which I assume we both agree would be territory offering the best chances to these organizations) and does not show any other areas in which such missionaries were active.

Incidentally, most of your post seems to take no account of what I wrote in my post and so talks as though I had omitted or neglected facts that actually were addressed there.
 
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

pescador

Wise old man
Supporter
Nov 29, 2011
8,530
4,776
✟498,844.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
It was a generalization, one that is often by historians and others. But you can call it 40% if you prefer. Or 61.3% if you'd rather. (sigh)

The point remains that the Bible societies and evangelistic associations in the English speaking world were especially active throughout the globe in those days in spreading the Gospel, using the KJV as their version of Scripture.

What's more, your map shows only official British colonies (which I assume we both agree would be territory offering the best chances to these organizations) and does not show any other areas in which such missionaries were active.

Incidentally, most of your post seems to take no account of what I wrote in my post and so talks as though I had omitted or neglected facts that actually were addressed there.

I suspect that one of the reasons that the Bible societies and evangelistic associations in the English speaking world distributed the King James is because it wasn't copyrighted.
 
Upvote 0