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

createdtoworship

In the grip of grace
Mar 13, 2004
18,941
1,758
West Coast USA
✟33,173.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Having the Bible in a language people can actually understand, instead of a language that's 400 years out of date that relatively few people can make heads or tails of.
As I mentioned in the OP, reading various translations is fine, it's just that you should have stricter rules about what is a translation, or what is the "Holy" Bible. For example the living Bible is great and I read it to my kids for bible study, same with the new living bible. But some translations that are newer are actually paraphrases and not translations. They are not the Holy Bible, they are like a commentary.
 
Reactions: ml5363
Upvote 0

createdtoworship

In the grip of grace
Mar 13, 2004
18,941
1,758
West Coast USA
✟33,173.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married



Actually the Vulgate has some major flaws as well, as Martin Luther discovered. For example, what should have been translated "repent" the Vulgate translates as "do penance". A huge difference with huge implications on the Reformation.

Some denominations have their own translation --- Jehovah's Witnesses for sure and I am not sure about the Mormons.

i will buy the Orthodox Study Bible in the future that have the English translation of the Septuagint and the Textus Receptus/Byzantine/Majority Texts

I was rereading the sinaiticus fraud link, and it is very compelling.

I will email the author of the article, I used to have her email.

I will ask for some direct quotes from some books she cites.

but the gist of the article is that Constantine Simonides (1805 - 1867) a scholar around the time of tischendorf, claimed to actually make the fraudulent manuscript himself. He did have a reputable history for making fake manuscripts. I would read the article, very compelling. kjvonly2: Sinaiticus may really be a forgery after all...

also I found this online while researching, in a scholarly forum and no one seemed to address this guys post:
The question of Sinaiticus authenticity toward a wild turn after the manuscript was put online in 2009 by the Codex Sinaiticus Project. It became possible to see that the 1844 Leipzig 43 leaves, about 10% of the parchment, was still a very unusual white parchment, it never yellowed with age. While the 90% of the parchment in London, which had been brought to St. Petersburg in 1859, had a more stained yellow appearance. When this disparity was connected to the specific allegations published in 1863 that Tischendorf (or his allies) had stained the manuscript in the intervening period from 1844 to 1859, you had a rather incredible before and after confirmation of tampering.

This was one of numerous elements that have arisen that has led to the questioning of Sinaiticus "authenticity". Meaning, it may not have been written in the 4th century, there is strong evidence that its production was actually around 1840.

Steven Avery

and another poster confirmed this with this post:

I am not a Greek scholar, but I've read that the date of this codex cannot be as ancient as claimed since it contains modern Greek writing (Epistle of Barnabas) and the state of the book itself has not aged as other manuscripts of any significant age. These factors seem to put more weight on it being the writing of Simonides.
 
Last edited:
Reactions: straykat
Upvote 0

createdtoworship

In the grip of grace
Mar 13, 2004
18,941
1,758
West Coast USA
✟33,173.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married

What's odd is that the translators of the KJV believed things that most KJVO people would repudiate.

I fully agree with you but you will find it is the most accurate version.

Most accurate of its day perhaps; but not so currently.

But ANY translation will NEVER hold a candle to the original. EVER.

The irony is that KJVO folks use the KJV as the standard and not the original texts.

It's pathetic, frankly.

It's a translation. Nothing more, nothing less.



I prefer to use translations which are from the textus receptus. for the old testament, I used the English translation of the Septuagint which is closer to the Hebrew original


Berean Literal Bible. It does a better job of translating the Greek verb tenses which most English versions do a poor job of.


The NASB is probably the most accurate but quite frankly; if you're reading the Bible constantly and growing in Christ; who cares what translation it is?

the KJV is the most accurate in comparison to all the other versions. the nkjv has twisted a lot of the original text and added some of its own meanings...

All main translations use the Masoretic text for all of the OT. Your “Byzantine text” et al refer To the NT Greek, not the Hebrew OT.

The lack of response by any KJVOs to the OP of this thread is very telling. They simply have no answers to it, & they can't really defend their false doctrine.

So you say. In fact, they are from the oldest and best manuscripts.



The Hebrew is ambiguous. The NLT does the same as the ESV; both have the other possible interpretation in a footnote.



Absolute nonsense!

I hear that a lot. Always from KJVO-ers who have never actually read the Greek or the Hebrew.

I thought I would post another evidence of tampering, (from another thread on this forum)
: Before the Codex Sinaiticus, the first five letters of Barnabas were not known to us, but with the "discovery" of the Codex Sinaiticus we were able to know what was in them. The Codex Sinaiticus was found by Constantin von Tischendorf in 1845. The only problem that we have is that in 1843, a good 2 years before the discovery of the Codex Sinaiticus, Constantine Simonides had published a book called the "The Letters of Barnabas" which he even had the first 4 letters that were first found in the Codex Sinaiticus. They were exactly the same, word for word. So the question lies, doesn't it naturally follow that only two sources at that relative time claimed to have the books, and one source claims to forge the second source? Doesn't that add validity to his claim? There is a second source that claims He forged it:
In Oct 15, 1862, Kallinikos Hieromachos, wrote a letter, were it stated that


...I do myself declare to all men by this letter, that the Codex of the Old and New Testaments, together with the Epistle of Barnabas and of the Shepherd Hermas, which was abstracted by Dr. Tischendorf from the Greek monastery of Mount Sinai, is a work of the hands of the unwearied Simonides himself. Inasmuch as I myself saw him in 1843 ... in the month of February writing it in Athos...Dr. Tischendorf, coming to the Greek monastery of Sinai in 1844, in the month of May (if my memory does not deceive me), and remaining there several days, and getting into his hands, by permission of the librarian, the codex we are speaking of, and perusing and re-perusing it frequently, abstracted secretly a small portion of it, but left the largest portion in the place where it was, and departed undisturbed...And I know yet further, that the codex also was cleaned with lemon-juice, professedly for the purpose of cleaning its parchments, but in reality in order to weaken the freshness of the letters, as was actually the case."


this adds validity to the fact that 10% of the manuscript is whiter than the rest of it. It would naturally follow that that was the part that was cleaned with lemon juice.
 
Upvote 0

straykat

Well-Known Member
Apr 17, 2018
1,120
640
Catacombs
✟22,648.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private

Those letters of Barnabas were well known and in fragments of Greek and much in Latin. And there's nothing out of the ordinary about them. Simonides said he was commissioned to make a Codex of many books (including the Bible), but it was discarded because of mistakes. He was the first say it was his work when Tischendorf later found the discarded copy and claimed it was older than it was. Simonides is an ally in this. He's the only one who spoke up against this in the past, and Tischendorf and Westcott and Hort slandered him and ruined Simonides' professional life. Don't punish him like they did.
 
Reactions: danbuter
Upvote 0

createdtoworship

In the grip of grace
Mar 13, 2004
18,941
1,758
West Coast USA
✟33,173.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
you would have to prove the date of the letters, not of the writing of the original but of the date of the manuscripts, and what date they were found. Because they date of the manuscripts is not the date of find.
 
Upvote 0

createdtoworship

In the grip of grace
Mar 13, 2004
18,941
1,758
West Coast USA
✟33,173.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Tinfoil hat conspiracy theories have long ago been debunked:
In Response to Chris Pinto | Alpha and Omega Ministries
I have used bullet points from that site, and refutted them, they are posted in the OP. If you want you can reply there. Most of the refutations to chris pinto and others like myself that support this theory, quote from a letter from simonites. However no one has posted an image or official source of this letter. I am sure it can be proven that the letter was genuine, relatively easily, however I have not seen anyone on this forum do so.
 
Upvote 0

JackRT

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Oct 17, 2015
15,722
16,445
80
small town Ontario, Canada
✟767,295.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Unorthodox
Marital Status
Married

John Dominic Crossan, The Historical Jesus (HarperCollins, 1991) dates the Epistle of Barnabus to about AD 100 making it contemporaneous with the Gospel of John and the Didache.
 
Upvote 0

createdtoworship

In the grip of grace
Mar 13, 2004
18,941
1,758
West Coast USA
✟33,173.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
John Dominic Crossan, The Historical Jesus (HarperCollins, 1991) dates the Epistle of Barnabus to about AD 100 making it contemporaneous with the Gospel of John and the Didache.
yes, the date of a manuscript and the date it was found is not the same date. They need to know when they found it, this is really what is in question. Not the date the manuscript was written. Thanks for the reply.
 
Upvote 0

YeshuaFan

Well-Known Member
Oct 19, 2018
3,003
996
63
Macomb
✟56,324.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
ESV is more accurate, and uses the same manuscripts. But those manuscripts have a shady past. Textus receptus has a little more verifiable history. (NKJV/KJV) are probably the most accurate in my opinion.
The nas is the most literal version available, and tends to adhere to Greek text better, but all 3 of those mentioned here are really good for use!
 
Reactions: danbuter
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

Concord1968

LCMS Lutheran
Sep 29, 2018
790
437
Pacific Northwest
✟23,029.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
Agreed, as to him Jesus died and was devoured by wild dogs!
As a general rule, one should never consult apostates and atheists about Christianity in general, let alone theology and the Bible. They have 0 credibility.
 
Reactions: danbuter
Upvote 0

JackRT

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Oct 17, 2015
15,722
16,445
80
small town Ontario, Canada
✟767,295.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Unorthodox
Marital Status
Married
As a general rule, one should never consult apostates and atheists about Christianity in general, let alone theology and the Bible. They have 0 credibility.

Nor does that make them wrong. I sometimes wonder if the scholarship of "true believers" can be tainted by a fear of departing from the norm of accepted belief. The same thing sometimes happens with scientists.
 
Upvote 0

Concord1968

LCMS Lutheran
Sep 29, 2018
790
437
Pacific Northwest
✟23,029.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
The rejection of historic Christian orthodoxy = apostasy. Someone like John Dominic Crossan clearly fits the bill, and as such has no business calling himself a Christian or speaking on anything related to Christianity.
 
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

createdtoworship

In the grip of grace
Mar 13, 2004
18,941
1,758
West Coast USA
✟33,173.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
The nas is the most literal version available, and tends to adhere to Greek text better, but all 3 of those mentioned here are really good for use!
NAS is a literal translation and was meant to compete with the KJV in literalness. But it uses inferior manuscripts. As the sinaiticus has allegations of forgery. How can we trust God's words to the copying effort of a master forger? It makes sense that the modern translations leave out verses, because when forging a document you are susceptible to missing some sections. Rather than the opposite, of adding some sections. Which takes more effort.
 
Upvote 0

createdtoworship

In the grip of grace
Mar 13, 2004
18,941
1,758
West Coast USA
✟33,173.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Nor does that make them wrong. I sometimes wonder if the scholarship of "true believers" can be tainted by a fear of departing from the norm of accepted belief. The same thing sometimes happens with scientists.
that would be a healthy fear of the Lord they had. We should all have that fear. Modern textual critics should fear the Lord, and many of them don't. Which is why I rarely study or recommend higher criticism, as a study. I go as far as lower criticism.
 
Upvote 0

JackRT

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Oct 17, 2015
15,722
16,445
80
small town Ontario, Canada
✟767,295.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Unorthodox
Marital Status
Married

One should never fear new insights. A better approach is to be skeptical --- of both the new insights and the old ones.
 
Upvote 0

createdtoworship

In the grip of grace
Mar 13, 2004
18,941
1,758
West Coast USA
✟33,173.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
One should never fear new insights. A better approach is to be skeptical --- of both the new insights and the old ones.
being a skeptic in life is a very hard life. Imagine disbelieving everything, even good things, and only believing them when imperitively proven as fact, which is hard to do for anything. You would live your life without faith. And Without faith, we can't have hope or joy. So, no...I would rather not live a life of a skeptic.
 
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

createdtoworship

In the grip of grace
Mar 13, 2004
18,941
1,758
West Coast USA
✟33,173.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married

What's odd is that the translators of the KJV believed things that most KJVO people would repudiate.

I fully agree with you but you will find it is the most accurate version.

Most accurate of its day perhaps; but not so currently.

But ANY translation will NEVER hold a candle to the original. EVER.

The irony is that KJVO folks use the KJV as the standard and not the original texts.

It's pathetic, frankly.

It's a translation. Nothing more, nothing less.



I prefer to use translations which are from the textus receptus. for the old testament, I used the English translation of the Septuagint which is closer to the Hebrew original


Berean Literal Bible. It does a better job of translating the Greek verb tenses which most English versions do a poor job of.


The NASB is probably the most accurate but quite frankly; if you're reading the Bible constantly and growing in Christ; who cares what translation it is?

the KJV is the most accurate in comparison to all the other versions. the nkjv has twisted a lot of the original text and added some of its own meanings...

All main translations use the Masoretic text for all of the OT. Your “Byzantine text” et al refer To the NT Greek, not the Hebrew OT.

The lack of response by any KJVOs to the OP of this thread is very telling. They simply have no answers to it, & they can't really defend their false doctrine.

So you say. In fact, they are from the oldest and best manuscripts.



The Hebrew is ambiguous. The NLT does the same as the ESV; both have the other possible interpretation in a footnote.



Absolute nonsense!

I hear that a lot. Always from KJVO-ers who have never actually read the Greek or the Hebrew.

"Now there are those who would argue that the last twelve verses of Mark's Gospel are not found in some of the earliest manuscripts. It is true that these last twelve verses of Mark's Gospel are not found in the Codex Sinaiticus or the Codex Vaticanus, which are both a part of the Alexandrian family of manuscripts. However, it is interesting to note that the early church fathers, Iranius, who lived from AD 140 to 202, and Hippolatus, who lived from AD 170 to 235, both quote from these last twelve verses of Mark's Gospel. Now the argument that some of the scholars give is that because this portion of Mark's Gospel does not appear in the Codex Sinaiticus, which is one of the oldest complete manuscripts that we possess (though it really is not complete), they say that this passage then was inserted later on by a copier. However, Codex Sinaiticus actually dates back to sometime into the AD 400s. They do not know the exact date, however 420 to 460 are the dates that are usually established for the Codex Sinaiticus. Here is Iranius, one of the church fathers, 200 years before the Codex Sinaiticus was ever copied and he is quoting, no doubt, from an earlier manuscript. And so, the overwhelming evidence is that the last twelve verses of Mark's Gospel actually were in the original manuscripts and somehow got deleted from the Codex Sinaiticus and the Vaticanus which comes, as I say, from the same Alexandrian family of manuscripts."- Chuck Smith (blue letter Bible)
 
Reactions: danbuter
Upvote 0