King James Version

[TwinCrier]

Thanks. The first one says it's copyrighted, and the second one is still in draft form, but I'll give them both a looksee with both eyes.

 

[Gold Dragon]

Thanks. The first one says it's copyrighted, and the second one is still in draft form, but I'll give them both a looksee with both eyes.

Its copyright allows for the free distribution of 1000 copies, essentially having no copyright unless you are trying to mass produce it.

Net Bible : Preface
...
In addition, anyone who wants to give away the Bible can print up to 1,000 copies of the NET Bible and distribute them for free without the need for written permission.
...

Trademark and Copyright Information
THE NET BIBLE IS NOT A SHAREWARE PROGRAM
OR PUBLIC DOMAIN DOCUMENT AND MAY NOT BE
DUPLICATED WITHOUT PERMISSION, HOWEVER:

From our website at WWW.NETBIBLE.COM, you may download the NET BIBLE and print it for others as long as you give it away and do not charge for it. In this case, free means free. It cannot be bundled with anything sold, nor can you charge for shipping, handling, or anything. It is provided for personal study or for use in preparation of sermons, Sunday school classes, or other noncommercial study. This release is also available to organizations like the Gideons, who may distribute millions of copies of the NET BIBLE text without royalty. This release does not apply to media other than paper. For free distribution of more than 1000 paper copies (or distribution in any other form, e.g. electronic), you must obtain written permission and comply with our guidelines for content control and include currently valid BSP copyright and organizational acknowledgments.

 

[ZiSunka]

No, the KJV translators could not collect royalties on the translation because it is a translation, you cannot copyright something written by another.

Translations ARE copyright-able, and most translations of other books are copyrighted, so your theory that all other versions of the Bible are paraphrases so that the publisers can make money is incorrect. Books are copyrighted to protect the intellectual property, because books are VERY expensive to produce. Translators are not some guy in the basement of his house with a Greek NT and a Strong's dictionary, they are scholars, people who worked for many years to learn the language and make the translation, and they deserve to be paid for their work just like everyone else. BUT, the translators largely get paid a flat fee, and not royalties on each Bible sold. Bibles are expensive to print, too, because their great bulk requires special paper. If they were printed on regular typing paper, each Bible would come in 6 volumes and weigh a hundred pounds. Just try to carry THAT to church next week.

The revisions change words in order to obtain copyright. If it's REALLY just about the thees and thous, why not just change them to the word you? Corrupting God's word for profit is wrong in my opinion.... of course most modern translators admittedly do not belive the bible is anything more than an ancient faerie tale anyhow. You should read what they say of their own work.

Of course corrutping God's word for profit is wrong, it's wrong even if there is no profit at all. But changing the thees and thous won't help, you need to change the obsolete sentence structure (King James English was based on old Anglo-Saxon speech patterns which are VERY dissimilar to anything we speak today forsooth!), and the archaic words that nobody understands unless they have a PhD in Bible or Middle Ages English, such as propititation, verily, hast, giveth, comprehend (we think it means to understand, but back then it meant to accept), and so many others that I could never print them all here. It's an ancient and dead language, one step more understandable than Latin or Greek, but not two steps more understandable.

If we were reading the Bible just to enjoy the words, then KJV would be fine, but if we are reading to learn about God and life, then KJV is woefully inadequate and leads people to apply modern definitions to ancient words that leads to misunderstandings and doing and believing really dumb things. If you can't understand what you are reading, it can't nourish you and change your life.

 

[Palatka44]

Lambslove;
I love you but what you are stating is troubling me.

but if we are reading to learn about God and life, then KJV is woefully inadequate and leads people to apply modern definitions to ancient words that leads to misunderstandings and doing and believing really dumb things.

I guess that I did a dumb thing when accepting Christ into my heart after reading the KJV at the age of 9. I understood what it ment when in Romans 3:24&25 I read,
24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:
25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;
I understood every word. I understood that it took Christ to be the substitute sacrifice to cleanse me of my unrighteousness. It moved me to repentence.
If this has glorified my lack of knowledge then forever let me be dumb so I can rest in the knowledge that my soul is eternaly safe in the arms of my propitiation.
I will have no other version for the edification of my soul.

 

[Gold Dragon]

Lambslove;
I love you but what you are stating is troubling me.

I guess that I did a dumb thing when accepting Christ into my heart after reading the KJV at the age of 9. I understood what it ment when in Romans 3:24&25 I read,
24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:
25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;
I understood every word. I understood that it took Christ to be the substitute sacrifice to cleanse me of my unrighteousness. It moved me to repentence.
If this has glorified my lack of knowledge then forever let me be dumb so I can rest in the knowledge that my soul is eternaly safe in the arms of my propitiation.
I will have no other version for the edification of my soul.

[/size][/color][/font]

Not dumb at all. That is wonderful. She isn't saying that nobody can understand the KJV and that it isn't useful. Just that very few people can and those that can get through the KJV do so with difficulty and lots of potential for misunderstanding. Of course folks like you are much brighter and more familiar with Elizabethan English, having been exposed to it at a young age.

However for most of the current english world, giving them an Elizabethan English bible is very similar to giving a Portugese bible to a Spanish person. I'm sure they could use a Portugese-Spanish dictionary to figure out the words. And there are many similarities between Portugese and Spanish and if the Spaniard learned Portugese at a young age, they would have no problems. However, it is still a very different language from the one used by most Spaniards and insisting on using a foreign language can become a barrier to understanding the holy, authoritative and trustworthy word of God, similar to the barrier that the Vatican placed on God's people when they insisted that bibles only be in the Latin Vulgate, and not in the languages that Catholics were using resulting in generations of biblically illiterate Christians. Fortunately, the Vatican saw the error of its ways.

 

[JM]

Before we considerthe King James Version (KJV) and a few of the modern translations in use today, let us first consider certain Greek texts from which all New Testament translations are derived. Foremost amongst these is the Traditional Received Text (Textus Receptus), also called the Byzantine Text or the Majority Text because it is based on the vast majority of manuscripts still in existence. These extant manuscripts (MSS) were brought together by various editors such as Lucian (AD 250-312), Erasmus, Stephanus, Beza and the Elzevir brothers to form the text known as Textus Receptus, the name given to the Majority Text in the 17th century. The most notable editor of all was Desiderius Erasmus (1466-1536) one of the greatest scholars the world has ever known. When the early Protestant Reformers of the 16th and 17th centuries decided to translate the scriptures directly from Greek into the languages of Europe, they selected Textus Receptus as their foundation Greek document.

Dragon, I'm a TR onlyist (aka Byzantine Text or Majority Text.)

 

[TwinCrier]

Of course corrutping God's word for profit is wrong, it's wrong even if there is no profit at all. But changing the thees and thous won't help, you need to change the obsolete sentence structure (King James English was based on old Anglo-Saxon speech patterns which are VERY dissimilar to anything we speak today forsooth!), and the archaic words that nobody understands unless they have a PhD in Bible or Middle Ages English, such as propititation, verily, hast, giveth, comprehend (we think it means to understand, but back then it meant to accept), and so many others that I could never print them all here. It's an ancient and dead language, one step more understandable than Latin or Greek, but not two steps more understandable.

I believe I clearly addressed this in my first post to this thread #13, but I challenge you to go to anyone on the street and ask them to list the ten commandments; if gambling weren't a sin I would bet real money that the first word out of their mouth will be THOU. If English is such a dead language, why doesn't someone update Shakespere? His writtings aren't even holy, and I'm sure millions of high school students would perfer it.
Now tell me the truth, do you REALLY not know what verily and giveth mean? As for hast or hath, I'm sure you know what both of those words mean. Archaic language isn't a very good excuse to corrupt scripture, which every bible transliteration has done. Again, I emplore you (do you know what that means?) to compare whatever paraphrase you normally use to the website I posted. Then ask your self in what way the changes alter the meaning. It's Usually not for the better. Don't continue to judge KJO in ignorance, study and compare.

 

[JM]

My problem with modern translations is both in the MSS and the way in which they are translated. I don't like the idea of man trying to translate 'thought for thought' and paraphrase doesn't seem to make the point of the verse, it seems watered down.

Just for fun, have a look:

 

[Gold Dragon]

My problem with modern translations is both in the MSS and the way in which they are translated. I don't like the idea of man trying to translate 'thought for thought' and paraphrase doesn't seem to make the point of the verse, it seems watered down.

Just for fun, have a look:

That diagram is pretty accurate although I would label the left end "word-for-word", the middle section "thought-for-thought" and the right end, "paraphrase".

I like to use the NASB and NRSV for a more word-for-word reading that is often more literal than the KJV. The draw back of word-for-word translations is that Greek and Hebrew grammar and sentence structure is obviously very different from 21st century english. Also, if anyone has experience in multiple languages (I speak 4 and have studied a few more) you'll know that one word in one language often can't be translated well to a single word in another language. This gives the "thought-for-thought" translations a better flow.

Paraphrase translations are a different beast altogether and they never claim to be accurate translations. Their aim is to capture the "feel" or big picture meaning of the bible into words and phrases that a specific generation will be able to identify with easily. They are obviously highly interpreted translations and also have the problem of being very generation specific and being even easier to get out of date than literal translations. I would never recommend a paraphrase bible for anyone interested in serious bible study, although they may be a good complement to a more literal translation like the NASB.

 

[Gold Dragon]

Dragon, I'm a TR onlyist (aka Byzantine Text or Majority Text.)

Yes I know. I listed out all the different versions of the Textus Receptus a few posts back (#36)

Also, the Byzantine Text and Majority Text, while they are in the same family as the TR, shouldn't necessarily be seen as equivalent to the TR. I'm not sure if you are interested in that distinction but if you are, I'd be happy to PM you the difference.

 

[SonOfThunder]

Can I ask if it bothers people that the name of God was translated LORD in the kjv?


James

 

[Gold Dragon]

Can I ask if it bothers people that the name of God was translated LORD in the kjv?

James

I have no problems with it. Would you prefer using Yahweh?

 

[JM]

Yes I know. I listed out all the different versions of the Textus Receptus a few posts back (#36)

Also, the Byzantine Text and Majority Text, while they are in the same family as the TR, shouldn't necessarily be seen as equivalent to the TR. I'm not sure if you are interested in that distinction but if you are, I'd be happy to PM you the difference.

I'd like to see the distinctions, if you could, post them here please.

Thanks

 

[Gold Dragon]

I'd like to see the distinctions, if you could, post them here please.

Here is the short answer:
The Byzantine text-type is a family of thousands of Greek NT manuscripts that are similar but not identical.

The Textus Receptus is a name for a series of compilations that is based on several Byzantine manuscripts and a Western text-type manuscript. None of the 17 Textus Receptus compilations are identical to any single manuscript.

The Majority text is a collection of the average or most common readings of all biblical manuscripts. Since the Byzantine family is the most common, the majority text is similar to an "average" Byzantine text but is not found in any single Byzantine manuscript and differs significantly from the Textus Receptus.

Here is the long answer:
The Byzantine text-type is one family of Greek New Testament biblical manuscripts that are availabe to biblical scholars. Other families include the Alexandrian, Caesarean and Western families. Manuscripts within these text-types are not identical but their variations generally have more in common with each other than they do with the variations in other families. Link

As you correctly stated, manuscripts in the Byzantine family of texts are the most numerous. Largely this is because eastern Christianity that eventually became the Eastern Orthodox Church (centred in Byzantium) continued to use Greek as their language of worship and scriptures long after western Christianity (eventually the Roman Catholic Church) stopped using Greek and had moved on to Latin and the Latin Vulgate.

The earliest manuscripts in the Byzantine family of texts are dated to be significantly more recent than the earliest manuscripts in the other families.

Alexandrian (3rd century)
Western (4th century)
Byzantine (9th century)

We do have fragments of Byzantine readings of portions of the gospels dating around the 5th century to suggest that the Byzantine family may have begun much earlier than the 9th century. Link

After the failure of the Crusades, the Eastern Orthodox Church was overrun by Muslims and many fled to the Christian west with Byzantine text-type manuscripts that were used by the EOC. Around the time of Erasmus (1500s) the reformation was beginning to pick up momentum and skepticism of the apparent corruptions of the RCC, in conjuction with manuscripts from the East that differed from the readings of the "corrupted" Latin Vulgate lead Erasmus to make a new greek compilation.

He used three 12th century Byzantine manuscripts found in the city of Basle, Switzerland (It should be noted that the family distinctions like Byzantine did not exist at this time)

2e - gospels
2ap - acts, paul's
1r - revelations

He also used a few readings from other documents around the same time period for consultation, including reverse translation from the Latin Vulgate for part of Revelations that was missing. In future editions he was able to get rid of any reliance on the Vulgate. Of course, the reformers, also wanting nothing to do with the Vulgate were very happy with Erasmus' work. Surprisingly to many, Erasmus remained in the Roman Catholic Church instead of joining in the reformation. Link

Robert Stephanus (Estienne) used many earlier manuscripts, including the Western text-type Codices Bezae (5th-6th century) to update Erasmus' work. Beza and the Elzevir brothers added some minor changes and it was an advertisment for Elzevir 1633 that first coined the phrase "Textus Receptus". It was Stephanus' (Estienne) 1550 and 1551 as well as Beza's 1598 that were used by the KJV translators. Link

In the last few centuries, many new manuscripts have been uncovered and the oldest manuscripts are all from the Alexandrian family. These manuscripts facilitated newer greek compilations of the NT and the entire field of textual criticism that is aimed at compiling the original text of the bible as accurately as possible given all of the manuscripts available to biblical scholars. This field also gave more credence to the accuracy of the Latin Vulgate, which wasn't something many anti-Catholic protestants wanted to hear.

The Majority text is an "average" text compiling the most common readings of all the Greek manuscripts available. Since Byzantine manuscripts far outnumber the others, majority compilations belong to the Byzantine family, although they are not identical to any single manuscript. Hodges & Farstad 1982 and Pierpont & Robinson 1991 produced two versions of the Majority text.

 

[JM]

Great post, it allowed me to see that I have the best MSS for the best translation in the KJV, thanks.

 

[Gold Dragon]

Great post, it allowed me to see that I have the best MSS for the best translation in the KJV, thanks.

No problem. I'm curious. Since I only mentioned four manuscripts, which MSS do you think are the best and why?

The Textus Receptus and the Majority text are not manuscripts but compilations of manuscripts. There are 16 TR compilations from 1516 to 1641. They are based largely on 3 manuscripts with contributions from about 10-20 other manuscripts. 3 TR compilations contributed to the KJV. There are 2 Majority Text compilations in 1982 and 1991 that are based on thousands of manuscripts. There are about 1000 translatable differences between Scrivener's Textus Receptus and Hodges and Farstad's Majority Text. Link

There are several thousand Byzantine manuscripts. Which ones are the best?

I didn't go into detail about any of the other MSS types and only talked about Byzantine MSS because that was what your question was about. If you want to hear about the other MSS text-types to make a comparison, let me know.

 

[MajorEd]

I too enjoy KJV and many other trans, my main version is the NLT. But I have some things against the KJV Onlyism mentality.

1. The KJV is writing on a second year college level. Very hard for new believers with no church background and for young teens, although they may adapt the fastest. (NIV-4th grade reading level)
2. You must be able to read-translate-comprehind all at the same time or the meaning is lost and wearness sets in, just spend some time in Job.
3. 300 years ago people spoke that way. They had a version in their own language. Why can't God do that for our generation?

But again, I enjoy the KJV version as well as others and disagree with the mentality of the onlyism not the actual version itself.

 

[JM]

The Textus Receptus and the Majority text are not manuscripts but compilations of manuscripts.

Exactly. God saved these mss and the Church at large used them. It was during a brief time I spent attending Bible study at a Greek Orthodox Church that convinced me the KJV was the best translation. The man leading the study spoke modern Greek and could read NT Greek, he was pleased to see the KJV line up many times with what was in his Bible. He wasn't and still isn't a KJV only person, but he suggested that I use it. After a short time of using it, I found others using it and read some works defending the KJV.

sp

 

[Jamza]

I don't really see what it is with the KJV, the NSRV is much better and more accurate

 

[Gold Dragon]

Exactly. God saved these mss and the Church at large used them.

Which Mss? The textus receptus and majority text are not manuscripts.

God also saved mss of other text types and the church at large uses those too.

It was during a brief time I spent attending Bible study at a Greek Orthodox Church that convinced me the KJV was the best translation. The man leading the study spoke modern Greek and could read NT Greek, he was pleased to see the KJV line up many times with what was in his Bible.

Yes. The KJV would line up well with the bibles used by the EOC since its source materials were of the same textual family but are obviously not identical and differ in many places.

He wasn't and still isn't a KJV only person, but he suggested that I use it. After a short time of using it, I found others using it and read some works defending the KJV.

I would encourage you to use the KJV too. It is a great translation.