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

[robycop3]

The various English translations were made for various times. The old ones are as valid as the newer ones; their language style is now archaic. As GOD causes/allows changes in the languages, He causes His word to be translated to reflect those changes, keeping it understandable for the people of a given time and nation.

 

[JackRT]

The various English translations were made for various times. The old ones are as valid as the newer ones; their language style is now archaic. As GOD causes/allows changes in the languages, He causes His word to be translated to reflect those changes, keeping it understandable for the people of a given time and nation.

Compared to the KJV we now possess many more ancient manuscripts (about 9000 compared to just 10) of the New Testament, and thanks to another 400 years of biblical scholarship, are far better equipped to seek to recover the original wording of the Greek text. Much as we might love the KJV and the majesty of it’s Jacobean English, modern translations are more accurate.

 

[Silverback]

my number 1 is NKJV, second is ESV. but I like the byzantine text type, byzantine family, type manuscripts.

so the NKJV/KJV, and 1 or two others are from these manuscripts, athough many majority text translations are in the works currently. Some better quality than others.

there are numerous basic errors in the KJV, which most don't want to mention. But the NKJV fixes them for the most part. But the NKJV may have taken too much liberty in some instances, and needs to be updated badly.

but regardless we need to stray from NASB, NIV, and ESV (uugg)....because they are from questionable manuscripts. Encouraging a questionable manuscript is not a good thing.

I still use the ESV as a greek tool to see how some words are translated, because it is a quite excellent word for word translation, it's just that it is based on a questionable alexandrian text like the sinaiticus. But I thought I would mention that ESV does have errors, like in this instance it translated genesis 3:16 with a theological twist to it.

I agree that the context does state that woman was desiring mans role, as lead. As most expository commentaries suggest, But the text itself says more of what the NKJV does, literally the word means a desire "toward" so "to" is real close. It's important with translations to have one that does not put theological viewpoints into the text, and simply translates what was in greek and hebrew in a literal fashion. But regarding the manuscript behind the ESV, there is some questions as to it's legitimacy.


more on the alleged sinaiticus forgery here:
http://kjvonly2.blogspot.com/2011/09/sinaiticus-may-really-be-forgery-after.html

here is an analysis on the priority of the byzantine over the modern texts source (alexandrian):
The Byzantine Priority Hypothesis


and some other translations that are not archaic like the KJV but still based on majority text: There is a huge need for a fully updated majority text tradition translation, many many people have undergone this task, and here are some of them. Some are better than others: And again I believe the NKJV is also a good text, but it needs an updated revision as well. Maybe undo some of the unnecessary changes.
(some links criticize some majority text translations, others support them, this is my list of links, they are unsorted and for your analysis and feedback as you have time)

http://www.byztxt.com/download/index.html
http://www.skypoint.com/members/waltzmn/RobPier.html
http://evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogspot.com/2006/01/review-of-robinson-and-pierpont.html

http://www.byztxt.com/download/index.html
http://solascriptura-tt.org/Bibliol...extMovingAwayFromPreservedScripture-Cloud.htm
https://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/te...ament_greek/text/wallace-majoritytext-gtj.pdf
https://bible.org/article/some-second-thoughts-majority-text
http://evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogspot.com/2006/03/interview-with-dan-wallace.html
http://www.livingwater.org/about-the-logos-21-translation.html
https://bible.org/article/majority-text-and-original-text-are-they-identical#_ftnref26
http://majoritytext.com/letter.html
http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/gtj/04-1_119.pdf
http://www.skypoint.com/members/waltzmn/RobPier.html
http://evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogspot.com/2006/01/review-of-robinson-and-pierpont.html

The King James Bible that is in use today is not the same as the 1611 edition, which used middle english, a native English speaker that reads well could read the 1611 version. Today's King James Bible in comparison is like reading the ESV. I wonder why the King James only club never mentions this.

 

[Dr. Jack]

Greetings, I will be the 'odd man out' ... I do hold the KJVOnly position ... but, I am NOT in agreement with Ruckman and some others that says the KJB corrects the Greek. I think we must take a careful look at the history of the development of things like Textual Criticism, and what the theological views were of those who produced the rules used in Textual Criticism.

I do firmly believe that there are two main families of MSS, and that the Byzantine type readings are superior. I certainly do not consider myself (or my position) as being of a cultic nature, and would hope that my statements could be as welcome here as all the ones that have preceded mine.

 

[Haramis]

A pastor reading from the KJV is about like rolling up dressed as a Hogwarts professor and delivering your sermon in a fake Scottish accent. You can do it, but I'm not going to take you seriously.

 

[Dr. Jack]

A pastor reading from the KJV is about like rolling up dressed as a Hogwarts professor and delivering your sermon in a fake Scottish accent. You can do it, but I'm not going to take you seriously.

Is there a particular reason for that?

 

[Haramis]

Is there a particular reason for that?

Translations exist because none of us speak the original languages. So it makes no sense to use a Bible that uses vernacular totally unlike any English spoken in America today. People who do it, are just being weird about a translation that's nothing special. KJV is fine - in the 1800s. Just like Darby. It has no place in the 21st century. Rather than enhancing comprehension and understanding, it impedes it. If you *really* need to get into granular details, either dig through Strongs, or go learn Hebrew/Greek. Translations exist for accessibility and KJV is not accessible so it fails as a translation today.

 

[Dr. Jack]

Translations exist because none of us speak the original languages.

None of us speak the original languages because their use colloquially, no longer occurs. But, as (I'll take it for granted for now that you are aware) you mentioned later in your comment, learning Greek and or Hebrew is possible.

it makes no sense to use a Bible that uses vernacular totally unlike any English spoken in America today.

I think you're a bit in error with that assertion.

1) The vernacular of the KJ was NOT in the actual vernacular of modern English.
2) The translators of the KJ had the task of bringing the Word of God from the original languages, to the English language, while keeping the genuineness of meaning and grammar in the text.
3) Shakespeare is also not in our current colloquial language either, yet, it is close enough to our literary English, that with a little effort, we still understand it.
C) To assert that the literary language of the KJ is "totally unlike any English spoken in America today", is to make an assertion that cannot be supported with evidence.

People who do it, are just being weird about a translation that's nothing special. KJV is fine - in the 1800s. Just like Darby.

So are you saying that since the U.S. Constitution was written in 1787, that it was only good through the 1800's? (Keep in mind that the KJ that most people now use is the 1769 Edition.)

It has no place in the 21st century.

Are you therefore saying that the U.S. Constitution has no place in the 21st century?

Rather than enhancing comprehension and understanding, it impedes it.

You are aware that only the Holy Spirit can give comprehension and understanding beyond the natural narrative; aren't you?

If you *really* need to get into granular details, either dig through Strongs, or go learn Hebrew/Greek.

1) While I am not here to give you my resume,
2) I surrendered to serve in the ministry in 1985 and began to "dig through Strongs"
3) I entered Bible College in 1986, and became a bit more familiar with Greek, (I must admit, I am better freinds with Greek, than Hebrew).

Translations exist for accessibility and KJV is not accessible so it fails as a translation today.

I beg to differ. Maybe you'll have to further define "accessibility"?

 

[createdtoworship]

The various English translations were made for various times. The old ones are as valid as the newer ones; their language style is now archaic. As GOD causes/allows changes in the languages, He causes His word to be translated to reflect those changes, keeping it understandable for the people of a given time and nation.

Compared to the KJV we now possess many more ancient manuscripts (about 9000 compared to just 10) of the New Testament, and thanks to another 400 years of biblical scholarship, are far better equipped to seek to recover the original wording of the Greek text. Much as we might love the KJV and the majesty of it’s Jacobean English, modern translations are more accurate.

The King James Bible that is in use today is not the same as the 1611 edition, which used middle english, a native English speaker that reads well could read the 1611 version. Today's King James Bible in comparison is like reading the ESV. I wonder why the King James only club never mentions this.

Greetings, I will be the 'odd man out' ... I do hold the KJVOnly position ... but, I am NOT in agreement with Ruckman and some others that says the KJB corrects the Greek. I think we must take a careful look at the history of the development of things like Textual Criticism, and what the theological views were of those who produced the rules used in Textual Criticism.

I do firmly believe that there are two main families of MSS, and that the Byzantine type readings are superior. I certainly do not consider myself (or my position) as being of a cultic nature, and would hope that my statements could be as welcome here as all the ones that have preceded mine.

A pastor reading from the KJV is about like rolling up dressed as a Hogwarts professor and delivering your sermon in a fake Scottish accent. You can do it, but I'm not going to take you seriously.

None of us speak the original languages because their use colloquially, no longer occurs. But, as (I'll take it for granted for now that you are aware) you mentioned later in your comment, learning Greek and or Hebrew is possible.




I think you're a bit in error with that assertion.

1) The vernacular of the KJ was NOT in the actual vernacular of modern English.
2) The translators of the KJ had the task of bringing the Word of God from the original languages, to the English language, while keeping the genuineness of meaning and grammar in the text.
3) Shakespeare is also not in our current colloquial language either, yet, it is close enough to our literary English, that with a little effort, we still understand it.
C) To assert that the literary language of the KJ is "totally unlike any English spoken in America today", is to make an assertion that cannot be supported with evidence.



So are you saying that since the U.S. Constitution was written in 1787, that it was only good through the 1800's? (Keep in mind that the KJ that most people now use is the 1769 Edition.)



Are you therefore saying that the U.S. Constitution has no place in the 21st century?



You are aware that only the Holy Spirit can give comprehension and understanding beyond the natural narrative; aren't you?



1) While I am not here to give you my resume,
2) I surrendered to serve in the ministry in 1985 and began to "dig through Strongs"
3) I entered Bible College in 1986, and became a bit more familiar with Greek, (I must admit, I am better freinds with Greek, than Hebrew).



I beg to differ. Maybe you'll have to further define "accessibility"?

I think you guys missed a post:

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

 

[Dr. Jack]

Please GradyII, fill me in!

 

[Haramis]

You are aware that only the Holy Spirit can give comprehension and understanding beyond the natural narrative; aren't you?

Then you have no need for a translation at all. You can simply read in tongues.

Maybe you'll have to further define "accessibility"?

By a normal person. Paul used Koine rather than formal Greek. Paul himself was quite literate and could have easily written in classical Greek. He opted for the most accessible version.

KJV is not accessible to most people, and they don't like it. Which is why virtually every KJV church is aging and dying.

Shakespeare is also not in our current colloquial language either, yet, it is close enough to our literary English, that with a little effort, we still understand it.
[..]
So are you saying that since the U.S. Constitution was written in 1787, that it was only good through the 1800's? (Keep in mind that the KJ that most people now use is the 1769 Edition.)

Shakespere is not accessible. It's famously inaccessible.

Do you believe that most people understand the Constitution? Because if they don't, it's not very accessible, is it?

I think you guys missed a post:

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

I answered that. "Not anymore". Like a horse and buggy, it was once perfectly fine. It's no longer in its era and is awkward and impractical today. All of the mainstream translations are faithfully rendered and accurate. It's simply a matter of personal taste in terms of presentation. No matter which version you read, you're going to walk away with the same core understanding of the faith.

 

[createdtoworship]

Please GradyII, fill me in!

I posted the link. Here it is again: Are modern Bible translations as good as the old ones? KJV versus ESV versus NKJV

 

[createdtoworship]

Then you have no need for a translation at all. You can simply read in tongues.


By a normal person. Paul used Koine rather than formal Greek. Paul himself was quite literate and could have easily written in classical Greek. He opted for the most accessible version.

KJV is not accessible to most people, and they don't like it. Which is why virtually every KJV church is aging and dying.


Shakespere is not accessible. It's famously inaccessible.

Do you believe that most people understand the Constitution? Because if they don't, it's not very accessible, is it?


I answered that. "Not anymore". Like a horse and buggy, it was once perfectly fine. It's no longer in its era and is awkward and impractical today. All of the mainstream translations are faithfully rendered and accurate. It's simply a matter of personal taste in terms of presentation. No matter which version you read, you're going to walk away with the same core understanding of the faith.

So you think the message is a real translation even though it add thousands of words not in greek? What about the living bible? Or any one of dozens of paraphrase who admit openly to changing God's word with a paraphrase? I use them, but I also know that they are not God's Holy Bible, they are not real translations, they are like a commentary.

 

[Dr. Jack]

Then you have no need for a translation at all. You can simply read in tongues.

In 1 Corinthians 2 Paul is writing in Greek to Greek speaking people. Yet he by inspiration says,

2:13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. 1 Corinthians

So, even though Paul is writing in the native, colloquial vernacular of the people, he tells them that without the aid of the Holy Spirit, they cannot discern spiritual truth. Here is the point: you are saying that because the KJ is somewhat archaic, it cannot be understood. Paul used Scriptures that dated back to Moses, yet, the Holy Spirit gave discernment.

KJV is not accessible to most people, and they don't like it. Which is why virtually every KJV church is aging and dying.

That is very interesting. I personally know of several KJV only churches, (I attended one today), that are far from aging (in a bad way), and are certainly not dying.

Shakespere is not accessible. It's famously inaccessible.

Do you believe that most people understand the Constitution? Because if they don't, it's not very accessible, is it?

I specifically asked you to define "accessible". Since you didn't do so, I will. One of the meanings of "accessible" is to be capable of being understood or appreciated. It is your argument that the KJ is incapable of being understood or appreciated, but since it is still being used by Christians all over the world that speak English, your argument is severely wanting.

I answered that. "Not anymore". Like a horse and buggy, it was once perfectly fine. It's no longer in its era and is awkward and impractical today. All of the mainstream translations are faithfully rendered and accurate. It's simply a matter of personal taste in terms of presentation. No matter which version you read, you're going to walk away with the same core understanding of the faith.

The Old translations are not only as good as, but better than the new versions. The truth is, as it has been stated throughout this thread, the greatest problem with modern versions is that they are based upon inferior MSS.

In seminaries across America it is being taught that Codex Vaticanus and Sinaiticus are the ywo oldest and best Greek MSS. It is very possible, and even probable that Sinaiticus is a forgery, and the two are more different than the same.

We must therefore learn why and how these two MSS have been referred to as the oldest and best Greek MSS.

 

[robycop3]

In 1 Corinthians 2 Paul is writing in Greek to Greek speaking people. Yet he by inspiration says,

2:13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. 1 Corinthians

So, even though Paul is writing in the native, colloquial vernacular of the people, he tells them that without the aid of the Holy Spirit, they cannot discern spiritual truth. Here is the point: you are saying that because the KJ is somewhat archaic, it cannot be understood. Paul used Scriptures that dated back to Moses, yet, the Holy Spirit gave discernment.

But Paul gave them in the language of the day, not in ancient Hebrew.

That is very interesting. I personally know of several KJV only churches, (I attended one today), that are far from aging (in a bad way), and are certainly not dying.

But, dying or not, we know such a church has at least one false doctrine - the KJVO myth.

I specifically asked you to define "accessible". Since you didn't do so, I will. One of the meanings of "accessible" is to be capable of being understood or appreciated. It is your argument that the KJ is incapable of being understood or appreciated, but since it is still being used by Christians all over the world that speak English, your argument is severely wanting.

We often hear a KJVO preacher stop in mid-sermon to explain a KJV archaism. And many people don't FULLY understand the KJV, especially wher words still in everyday use today, are used in the KJV with entirely-different meanings.
Conversation = lifestyle
Target = small shield
Let = either hinder or allow, depending upon the context
Ouches = settings for precious stones

To name a few.

The Old translations are not only as good as, but better than the new versions. The truth is, as it has been stated throughout this thread, the greatest problem with modern versions is that they are based upon inferior MSS.

Actually, as we were not present when any of those "imferior" mss. were made, we can't really pass accurate judgment upon them. We don't know who made most of them, where or when.

In seminaries across America it is being taught that Codex Vaticanus and Sinaiticus are the ywo oldest and best Greek MSS. It is very possible, and even probable that Sinaiticus is a forgery, and the two are more different than the same.

No two Scriptural mss. are exactly the same thruout, and the KJV, "Textus Receptus" (latest revision) & the mss. from which the TR was made don't agree in many places.

We must therefore learn why and how these two MSS have been referred to as the oldest and best Greek MSS.

This is all subject to opinion. One person's "best" may be another's "poor".

 

[Concord1968]

Recommended for all:
The King James Only Controversy

 

[GreekOrthodox]

Translations exist because none of us speak the original languages.

Sigh... the Greek Orthodox church STILL uses a mix Koine & Byzantine Greek for our services and correspondence. It isn't the same as modern Greek nor do we have casual conversations in Koine Greek (there isn't anything about the Red Sox in Scripture), but we still use every single day.

 

[Dr. Jack]

Recommended for all:
The King James Only Controversy

There have been several reviews written on this book by James White. I will mention only two:
1) Shortly after White published this work Peter Ruckman (no I'm not a fan of his, but he did write a review), wrote a review of Whoite's work, (Ruckman's review was some 500 pages), and with it, offered an opportunity for White to debate him on the subject. Long story short, White after first accepting the challenge, reneged prior to the agreed upon date. White has been given an open challenge by Ruckman, which White refuses to accept.
2) Allen James O'Reilly also wrote a detailed review of Whites work, titled: The "Whitewash" Conspiracy.

I personally know of no assertion that James White has made that cannot be refuted.

 

[Dr. Jack]

Sigh... the Greek Orthodox church STILL uses a mix Koine & Byzantine Greek for our services and correspondence. It isn't the same as modern Greek nor do we have casual conversations in Koine Greek (there isn't anything about the Red Sox in Scripture), but we still use every single day.

This is a very interesting, and valid point that modern scholarship ignores.

 

[Concord1968]

Ruckman was (he's dead) a crackpot. You'll never want for moonshine if you're using him as a source.