KJV Alone?

[landon13]

Hi everyone,

I have heard many different reports about the King James Version alone belief. Do these have grounding? If so, is the KJV really the best translation of the Bible into English?

I am currently using the ESV, having come from using the NIV; but I have been getting more and more interested in the KJV.

So, I would be interested in hearing your arguments about if I should switch right this second to the King James or if it is all blown out of proportion or just whatever insight y'all might be able to provide.

Thanks so much!

 

[tall73]

Hi everyone,

I have heard many different reports about the King James Version alone belief. Do these have grounding? If so, is the KJV really the best translation of the Bible into English?


I am currently using the ESV, having come from using the NIV; but I have been getting more and more interested in the KJV.

So, I would be interested in hearing your arguments about if I should switch right this second to the King James or if it is all blown out of proportion or just whatever insight y'all might be able to provide.

Thanks so much!

There are a few things to review here.

To identify whether it is the best Bible you first have to determine:

1. Is the translation the best. To determine that you have to decide whether you think a formal equivalence, very literal translation is best, or a dynamic equivalence, or thought for thought translation. The King James tends to be pretty literal, but does have some spots where it employs some dynamic equivalent readings. It is difficult to avoid some dynamic equivalence in the translation because to translate everything precisely can make for stilted English, and can include idioms that we do not have today. Usually translators will strike a balance. The NIV that you started with is more more "thought for thought" and will tend to smooth idioms, focus on good English rather than precision translation of the Greek. The ESV tends to be rather more literal and some even place it above the KJV in this category, though that is of course debated.

2. Are the underlying manuscripts the best. The text of the New Testament has been preserved in copies. The copies do not agree in about 2 percent of the text. So there are multiple "readings" or versions of particular verses. Sometimes these are quite minor and may not even be something you would translate. Other times they may be more significant. Some believe the underlying text of the KJV is superior to more recent Bibles. Some feel the opposite way.

Also, not all who are King James Only take the same view either about the translation. Some think it is just the best available one. Others think it is literally a perfect translation of the originals and that everything in it is correct through God's leading.

My overall take is that the KJV is a good literal translation. Some of the language is dated. I would not say read only the KJV, but would compare it with other versions as well.

 

[landon13]

There are a few things to review here.

To identify whether it is the best Bible you first have to determine "

1. Is the translation the best. To determine that you have to decide whether you think a formal equivalence, very literal translation is best, or a dynamic equivalence, or thought for thought translation. The King James tends to be pretty literal, but does have some spots where it employs some dynamic equivalent readings.

2. Are the underlying manuscripts the best. The text of the New Testament has been preserved in copies. The copies do not agree in about 2 percent of the text. So there are multiple "readings" or versions of particular verses. Sometimes these are quite minor and may not even be something you would translate. Other times they may be more significant. Some believe the underlying text of the KJV is superior to more recent Bibles. Some feel the opposite way.

Also, not all who are King James Only take the same view either about the translation. Some think it is just the best available one. Others think it is literally a perfect translation of the originals and that everything in it is correct through God's leading.

My overall take is that the KJV is a good literal translation. Some of the language is dated. I would not say read only the KJV, but would compare it with other versions as well.

Thank you so much for your reply. I totally agree. We can't take the King James version and say that this is the perfect translation ordained by God in the English language since it was no matter what a translation of the original text done by normal human beings.

I am interested to see other replies.

Thanks!

 

[seekingsolace]

I use a number of translations when studying but day to day I quite like NKJV.

 

[tall73]

Thank you so much for your reply. I totally agree. We can't take the King James version and say that this is the perfect translation ordained by God in the English language since it was no matter what a translation of the original text done by normal human beings.

I am interested to see other replies.

Thanks!

Yes, you may find the following helpful.
Preface to the King James Version 1611, Part 1 of 10

It is the introduction by the translators themselves. It makes reference to the fact that they believe the Holy Spirit has left some things uncertain, and often they had to put marginal notes about other possible translations. So they did not think it was the perfect translation either.

It is a bit long, with 10 sections. The last section is the most pertinent to this part of the conversation though if you just want to skip to that.

 

[tall73]

I use a number of translations when studying but day to day I quite like NKJV.

The NKJV has one strong feature. It employs most of the same underlying text as the KJV, but it also has perhaps the most extensive set of marginal notes to indicate when other texts disagree with the one they used. It notes readings by the Majority text and by the Critical text in the margin.

So if you want to know what the various manuscripts say without digging into Greek and such, it is a good resource. Most do rate it a bit below the KJV on the scale of literal translation.

 

[Cody2]

Stick with the KJV. Here's an article I did on the ESV...

The English Standard Version(ESV) was released by Crossway Books in 2001. They profess that the ESV is the most accurate version and is easier to read. According to them, the King James Bible(KJV) is not accurate and we need to update the language, just like all the other 300 new versions that have been published for money making purposes. One must notice that the new versions always compare themselves to the KJV.

Their claim is that the KJV is hard to understand and needs updating. Nothing can be further from the truth. When grammatically compared to the KJV, the ESV is much harder to read.

On the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level the KJB received a 4.32 when the ESV received an 8.22. The sentence complexity for the KJV is 29, when the ESV is 61. Vocabulary complexity for the KJV is 2 and the ESV is 10. With the higher number being easier to read, the short sentences in the KJV has 10,342 and the ESV with 3,441. Again the KJV has 5,728 simple sentences with the ESV having 2,301. The ESV had 13,478 big words, while the KJV only had 7,020. Finally, the KJV had the average of 8.78 average words per sentence when the ESV had 18.82. These results show that the people of the ESV have lied about their translation being easier to read.

The ESV's preface and introduction state that the ESV captures the precise wording of the "original text". That is a flat out lie because no one has the "originals" today. What we have today is around 6,000 pieces of copies of the Greek New Testament with most differing from each other. The ESV committee members are dishonest and handle the precious words of God deceitfully.

2 Corinthians 4:2 "But have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God." KJV

The KJV is translated from the Textus Receptus(TR) text. This text agrees with over 99% of the 5,686 Greek manuscripts. The ESV, along with all the other new versions is translated from the text of Westcott and Hort(W&H), which drastically different from the TR. The W&H text, that has been altered by the philosophy of men, removes complete verses and words, which explains why the new versions do the same. The new versions are not just "updating the language", they are corrupting the word of God with the help of the corrupt W&H text.

Brooke Foss Westcott and Fenton John Anthony Hort are the two men behind the corrupt Greek text of the new versions. These two men were on the translating committee of the Revised Version(RV). By reading these two men's quotes any Christian would agree that these two men were heretics.

For time sake, I will not quote all of their quotes, but leave it up to the reader to research these men. Here are just some of the false beliefs of these men. Both did not believe in the infallibility or authority of the Holy Scriptures. They denied the deity of the Lord Jesus Christ and did not believe in a literal eternal Hell. Both denied the literal account of creation in Genesis. Westcott believed in the worship of Mary, while Hort said that the worship of Mary and Jesus had a lot in common. Hort believed in the Roman Catholic sacraments and taught baptismal regeneration. Westcott did not believe in the literal Second Coming of Jesus Christ, nor believed in a literal heaven. Hort did not believe in the Trinity, nor believed in literal angels. Hort attacked the doctrine of substitution also. The list goes on and on, but I will stop there.

Those are the men behind the new version's Greek text and after examining their beliefs one can see why the new versions corrupt major doctrines, such as the deity of Jesus Christ. Understand that it is not just the ESV that uses the W&H text, but all the other new versions, such as the NIV, NASV, ASV, RV, RSV, NCV, etc.

The W&H Greek text consists of two corrupt manuscripts that disagree with the Majority text. These two manuscripts that are filled with errors are called the Vaticanus and Siniaticus, which include the Apocrypha in the Old Testament. The KJV translators made it clear that the Apocrypha was not inspired scripture by putting it in the middle for only historical reasons and noting that it was not scripture. The ESV uses the 4th edition of the UBS Greek New Testament and the 27th edition of Nestle's Novum Testamentum Graece, which follow the W&H Greek text.

Deceitfully, the ESV claims lineage to the KJV. Again, nothing can be further from the truth because as you have seen, the KJV and ESV use completely different texts in translating. The ESV uses the same Greek text as the Revised Standard Version(RSV), which claimed the KJV had many mistakes when it was published.

The Lord has warned people against subtracting and adding to his words. The ESV goes directly against God's command and takes out 17 complete verses. The fact is, the new version people are LIARS because they claim that they are just updating the language to make it "easier", but what they have done is used the corrupt W&H Greek text that corrupts doctrines and alters the precious words of God.

Deuteronomy 4:2 "YE SHALL NOT ADD unto the word which I command you, NEITHER SHALL YE DIMINISH ought from it.." KJV

Proverbs 30:6 "ADD THOU NOT unto his words.." KJV

Revelation 22:18,19 "..If any man SHALL ADD unto these things..And if any man shall TAKE AWAY FROM THE WORDS of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life.." KJV

Luke 8:12 "..then cometh the devil, and TAKETH AWAY the word.." KJV

My friends, God is not the author of the ESV! The spirit behind the ESV comes from the same person in the above verse that wants to take the word of God from you.

The 17 verses removed in the ESV are Matthew 12:47, 17:21, 18:11, 23:14; Mark 7:16, 9:44, 9:46, 11:26, 15:28; Luke 17:36, 22:44, 23:17; John 5:4; Acts 8:37, 15:34, 24:7, 28:29 and finally Romans 16:24. Look them up!

Do you know what Matthew 18:11 says?

Matthew 18:11 "For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost." KJV

What a verse to take to completely out!

Not only does the ESV take out 17 complete verses, it takes out over 33,000 words in just the New Testament alone. If the ESV is "easier" to read it is not because of it's reading grade scale, but the fact that is takes out so much of God's word.

The ESV takes out the name "Jesus" 18 times, "Jesus Christ" 51 times, "Christ" 39 times, "Lord" 66 times and "God" 38 times. The ESV attacks our Lord Jesus Christ! The ESV also removes the word "Hell" 40 times, the words "devil" and "devils" 83 times.

In Matthew 5:22, the ESV makes Jesus Christ a sinner by removing the phrase "without a cause". Remember that Jesus Christ got angry in Mark 3:5.

Matthew 5:22 "But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire." KJV

Matthew 5:22 "But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, 'You fool!' will be liable to the hell of fire." ESV


The ESV takes out the precious Blood of Jesus Christ in Colossians 1:14!

Colossians 1:14 "In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:" KJV

Colossians 1:14 "in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins." ESV


The ESV denies the deity of the Lord Jesus Christ in Philippians 2:6!

Philippians 2:6 "Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:" KJV

Philippians 2:6 "who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped," ESV


In 1 Timothy 3:16, the ESV attacks the deity and incarnation of Jesus Christ by replacing "God" with "He".

1 Timothy 3:16 "And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory." KJV

1 Timothy 3:16 "Great indeed, we confess, is the mystery of godliness: He was manifested in the flesh, vindicated by the Spirit, seen by angels, proclaimed among the nations, believed on in the world, taken up in glory." ESV


The ESV takes out the words "is come in the flesh" proving itself have the spirit of antichrist behind it.

1 John 4:3 "And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world." KJV

1 John 4:3 "and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you heard was coming and now is in the world already." ESV


We know that there are many sons of God in scripture, such as Adam(Luke 3:38), the angels(Job 1:6) and Christians(Philippians 2:15). With that in mind, the ESV changes John 3:16 into a lie by removing the word "begotten".

John 3:16 "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." KJV

John 3:16 "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life." ESV


The ESV gives Lucifer one of the names of the Lord Jesus Christ in Isaiah 14:12, which is "Day Star"(1 Peter 1:19).

Isaiah 14:12 "How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!" KJV

Isaiah 14:12 "How you are fallen from heaven, O Day Star, son of Dawn! How you are cut down to the ground, you who laid the nations low!" ESV


The Lord's Prayer is changed into the Devil's Prayer by removing the phrases "which art in heaven", "Thy will be done, as in heaven, so in the earth" and "deliver us from evil". The "father" of the ESV is not in heaven and does not want to deliver us from evil because it is Satan who is behind this corrupt translation!

Luke 11:2 "And he said unto them, When ye pray, say, Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, as in heaven, so in earth. 3 Give us day by day our daily bread. 4 And forgive us our sins; for we also forgive every one that is indebted to us. And lead us not into temptation; but deliver us from evil." KJV

Luke 11:2 "And he said to them, "When you pray, say: "Father, hallowed be your name. Your kingdom come. 3 Give us each day our daily bread, 4 and forgive us our sins, for we ourselves forgive everyone who is indebted to us. And lead us not into temptation." ESV

 

[Cody2]

The Virgin Birth is attacked by the ESV in Luke 2:33 by saying that Joseph was the father of Jesus!

Luke 2:33 "And Joseph and his mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of him." KJV

Luke 2:33 "And his father and his mother marveled at what was said about him." ESV


While the ESV corrupts the word of God, it seems like they try their best to cover their tracts. In 2 Corinthians 2:17, they replace "corrupt the word of God" with "peddlers of God's word".

2 Corinthians 2:17 "For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ." KJV

2 Corinthians 2:17 "For we are not, like so many, peddlers of God's word, but as men of sincerity, as commissioned by God, in the sight of God we speak in Christ." ESV


The ESV takes out the word "study" in 2 Timothy 2:15 and replaces it with "Do your best". What a joke right? Not only do they do that, but they take out the words "rightly dividing" and replace it with "rightly handling". To understand the Bible one must know how to rightly divide it.

2 Timothy 2:15 "Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." KJV

2 Timothy 2:15 "Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth." ESV


In Luke 4:4, the ESV takes out the phrase "but by every word of God" and we can see why! Note that the Lord Jesus Christ is quoting Deuteronomy 8:3.

Luke 4:4 "And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God." KJV

Luke 4:4 "And Jesus answered him, "It is written, 'Man shall not live by bread alone." ESV


Remember that I said Hort attacked the doctrine of substitution and that the ESV and new versions come from the W&H text. Knowing that, one must take a look at the verses dealing with Salvation in the ESV. In the ESV, salvation is not a one time finished thing, rather salvation is a process and is not complete. Notice in the below verses that the KJV says "saved", while the ESV says "being saved".

Act 2:47 "Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved." KJV

Acts 2:47 "praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to their number day by day those who were being saved." ESV

-

1 Corinthians 1:18 "For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God." KJV

1 Corinthians 1:18 "For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God." ESV

-

1 Corinthians 15:2 "By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain." KJV

1 Corinthians 15:2 "and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you--unless you believed in vain." ESV

-

2 Corinthians 2:15 "For we are unto God a sweet savour of Christ, in them that are saved, and in them that perish:" KJV

2 Corinthians 2:15 "For we are the aroma of Christ to God among those who are being saved and among those who are perishing," ESV


In Colossians 2:10, the ESV says that we are not "complete" in Christ, rather we are just "filled".

Colossians 2:10 "And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power:" KJV

Colossians 2:10 "and you have been filled in him, who is the head of all rule and authority." ESV


The ESV perverts the simplicity of salvation in Matthew 7:14 by saying "the way is hard". There is nothing hard about being saved. Being saved is simply by realizing you are a sinner and trusting Jesus Christ(John 10:9, John 4:14).

Matthew 7:14 "Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it." KJV

Matthew 7:14 "For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few." ESV


I understand that I quoted a lot of verses making this article fairly long, but I wanted the reader to actually see just SOME of the corruptions in the ESV. Believe me, what I have shown is not even half of all the corruptions in the ESV.

So, what have we learned? The ESV flat out lies by saying it is just an update of the KJV and is "easier" to read. The ESV people talk about the "originals" without never even seeing them. The ESV uses the corrupt Greek manuscripts by W&H that are based upon the Vaticanus and Siniaticus manuscripts, which include the Catholic Apocrypha IN the Old Testament. Finally, they take out complete verses and words, while corrupting major doctrines and attacking our Lord Jesus Christ.

Contrary to popular belief, this is a VERY serious issue and must be examined. Having God's pure word is the #1 issue because without the word of God we would not know what God said about anything, including major doctrines like salvation and the deity of Jesus Christ. If the new versions are taking away from the word of God then the Bible issue is everything but a "non-issue". Christian, the Devil is undoubtedly involved with the new versions, such as the ESV, NIV, NASV and NKJV.

 

[High Fidelity]

The KJV is easily the most beautifully written, but I don't think it's the most accurate translation nowadays.

For accuracy I'd recommend sticking to your ESV, one of the most accurate versions.

Of course, though, there will be naysayers that will claim the KJV is the unadulterated word of God, which is ironic given how many translations preceded it, but yeah.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

Stick with the KJV. Here's an article I did on the ESV...

The English Standard Version(ESV) was released by Crossway Books in 2001. They profess that the ESV is the most accurate version and is easier to read. According to them, the King James Bible(KJV) is not accurate and we need to update the language, just like all the other 300 new versions that have been published for money making purposes. One must notice that the new versions always compare themselves to the KJV.

Their claim is that the KJV is hard to understand and needs updating. Nothing can be further from the truth. When grammatically compared to the KJV, the ESV is much harder to read.

On the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level the KJB received a 4.32 when the ESV received an 8.22. The sentence complexity for the KJV is 29, when the ESV is 61. Vocabulary complexity for the KJV is 2 and the ESV is 10. With the higher number being easier to read, the short sentences in the KJV has 10,342 and the ESV with 3,441. Again the KJV has 5,728 simple sentences with the ESV having 2,301. The ESV had 13,478 big words, while the KJV only had 7,020. Finally, the KJV had the average of 8.78 average words per sentence when the ESV had 18.82. These results show that the people of the ESV have lied about their translation being easier to read.

The KJV is substantially more difficult to read than is ESV; and therefore, in order to defend the KJV, radicalized Christian fundamentalists who believe that it alone is the true word of God resort to lies and distortions of the truth to defend it.

Curricula for use in public schools in the United States are graded using three standard tests:

Flesch Reading Ease
Fog Scale Level
Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level

These tests measure three variables:

The number of words in each sentence
The number syllables in each word
The number of sentences in each paragraph or section of the text

When these tests were applied to six of the chapters in the KJV, its grade level was measured at grade level 9.52 (those six chapters are as follows: Genesis 1, Deuteronomy 1, Proverbs 1, John 1, 1 Corinthians 1, and Revelation 1). When the same tests were applied to the same six of the chapters in ESV, its grade level was measured at grade level 7.9.

When the vocabulary of the KJV is included in the testing, the grade level is elevated to the 14th grade level; that is, two years of college (or the equivalent) are required to understand the grammar and most (but not all) of the vocabulary. At Matt. 4:2, we read in the Cambridge and Oxford editions of the KJV,

Matt 4:2. And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward an hungred.

Precisely what does ‘an hungred mean? It does not mean anything—it is a mistake! The verse should read as it does is some other editions of the KJV,

Matt 4:2. And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward ahungered..

We find the error in the Cambridge and Oxford editions of the KJV because the English construction ‘ahungered’ was already archaic in 1611 when the KJV was first published and the publishers and printers of the KJV did not understand the word nor did they know how to spell it. Consequently, when we compare copies of the KJV we find the following variation:

he was afterward an hungered.
he was afterward a hungered.
he was afterward an hungred.
he was afterward ahungered.

I did not just copy this information from a phony website—I have in my personal library copies of the KJV with all of these variations!

We have here another problem— precisely what does ‘ahungered’ mean? Merriam-Webster dictionaries have one view, and Oxford dictionaries have another. The word is so archaic and rare that even specialists in the study of archaic English disagree with each other!

We have here yet another problem—‘ahungered’ is a KJV translation of a third person singular Greek verb in the active voice, the aorist tense, and the indicative mood, but the very same third person singular Greek verb in the active voice, the aorist tense, and the indicative mood in Mark 11:12 is translated as, “he was hungry,” showing the inconsistency in the KJV when they are translating identical Greek constructions—even in the same context!

However,

Matt. 4:2. And after fasting forty days and forty nights, he was hungry. (ESV)

Matt. 11:12. On the following day, when they came from Bethany, he was hungry. (ESV)

We see here that in the ESV Matt.4:2 and Mark 11:12 are translated accurately and consistently; and that they are translated in contemporary English; and that the English is much easier to read and understand than in the KJV. I do not care for the ESV, but I would not have to lie about it to tell you why.

 

[98cwitr]

The Virgin Birth is attacked by the ESV in Luke 2:33 by saying that Joseph was the father of Jesus!

Luke 2:33 "And Joseph and his mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of him." KJV

Luke 2:33 "And his father and his mother marveled at what was said about him." ESV

Show me in the original greek (below) where Joseph is explicitly stated please.

καὶ ἦν ὁ πατὴρ αὐτοῦ καὶ ἡ μήτηρ θαυμάζοντες ἐπὶ τοῖς λαλουμένοις περὶ αὐτοῦ.

 

[tall73]

Show me in the original greek (below) where Joseph is explicitly stated please.

καὶ ἦν ὁ πατὴρ αὐτοῦ καὶ ἡ μήτηρ θαυμάζοντες ἐπὶ τοῖς λαλουμένοις περὶ αὐτοῦ.

This once again is an issue of the underlying text. It is in the TR, and the Majority text. Here is how it reads in the EO 1904 Patriarchal edition Majority Text:

Luk 2:33 καὶ ἦν ᾿Ιωσὴφ καὶ ἡ μήτηρ αὐτοῦ θαυμάζοντες ἐπὶ τοῖς λαλουμένοις περὶ αὐτοῦ·

 

[tall73]

Stick with the KJV. Here's an article I did on the ESV...

The English Standard Version(ESV) was released by Crossway Books in 2001. They profess that the ESV is the most accurate version and is easier to read. According to them, the King James Bible(KJV) is not accurate and we need to update the language, just like all the other 300 new versions that have been published for money making purposes. One must notice that the new versions always compare themselves to the KJV.

- The KJV is still copyrighted in England.
- Your arguments might be better received if you stick to the facts rather than ascribing motives. The text is either accurate or it is not, regardless of perceived motives.

The ESV's preface and introduction state that the ESV captures the precise wording of the "original text". That is a flat out lie because no one has the "originals" today. What we have today is around 6,000 pieces of copies of the Greek New Testament with most differing from each other. The ESV committee members are dishonest and handle the precious words of God deceitfully.

So then by this you are also acknowledging the KJV translators did not have the original text as well I assume?

 

[tall73]

The KJV is translated from the Textus Receptus(TR) text. This text agrees with over 99% of the 5,686 Greek manuscripts. The ESV, along with all the other new versions is translated from the text of Westcott and Hort(W&H), which drastically different from the TR. The W&H text, that has been altered by the philosophy of men, removes complete verses and words, which explains why the new versions do the same. The new versions are not just "updating the language", they are corrupting the word of God with the help of the corrupt W&H text.

I prefer the majority text over the TR and WH myself. The TR is not exactly like the majority text as a whole. So you have similar questions to answer if the number of manuscripts is the key factor.

 

[tall73]

The W&H Greek text consists of two corrupt manuscripts that disagree with the Majority text. These two manuscripts that are filled with errors are called the Vaticanus and Siniaticus, which include the Apocrypha in the Old Testament. The KJV translators made it clear that the Apocrypha was not inspired scripture by putting it in the middle for only historical reasons and noting that it was not scripture. The ESV uses the 4th edition of the UBS Greek New Testament and the 27th edition of Nestle's Novum Testamentum Graece, which follow the W&H Greek text.

The NA text actually combined three different ones originally, including WH. It has undergone many revisions since then. It is still similar to the WH text, but that is because many scholars agree with WH decisions on some points. So you can't blame WH for all the problems. A lot of scholars have been convinced by the older = more reliable argument.

 

[tall73]

Deceitfully, the ESV claims lineage to the KJV. Again, nothing can be further from the truth because as you have seen, the KJV and ESV use completely different texts in translating. The ESV uses the same Greek text as the Revised Standard Version(RSV), which claimed the KJV had many mistakes when it was published.

It is still lineage. The RV was a revision of the KJV. Yes, it revised a lot. But it is still descended from the KJV so it is not deceitful. Moreover, since they publish freely what text they use, folks who care can see it up front.

The Lord has warned people against subtracting and adding to his words. The ESV goes directly against God's command and takes out 17 complete verses. The fact is, the new version people are LIARS because they claim that they are just updating the language to make it "easier", but what they have done is used the corrupt W&H Greek text that corrupts doctrines and alters the precious words of God.

This is of course the whole debate. They would say the TR added, you would say the critical text subtracted. Arguments can be made for both.

Suffice to say the KJV does not have all majority readings either, so you have to spell out why you think the KJV text is best before using it as the standard to say what was removed.

My friends, God is not the author of the ESV! The spirit behind the ESV comes from the same person in the above verse that wants to take the word of God from you.

I would be careful judging motives. Make your argument on the textual features. If the TR is best, demonstrate it.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

The KJV is translated from the Textus Receptus(TR) text. This text agrees with over 99% of the 5,686 Greek manuscripts. The ESV, along with all the other new versions is translated from the text of Westcott and Hort(W&H), which drastically different from the TR. The W&H text, that has been altered by the philosophy of men, removes complete verses and words, which explains why the new versions do the same. The new versions are not just "updating the language", they are corrupting the word of God with the help of the corrupt W&H text.

The First edition of the Novum Testamentum Graece was published in Germany in 1898. The text was based upon a comparison of three earlier Greek texts:

1. Tischendorf’s text of 1869-1872
2. Westcott and Hort’s text of 1881
3. Weymouth’s text of 1892

Beginning with his third edition of 1901, Eberhard Nestle’s Greek text is based upon a comparison of three earlier Greek texts:

1. Tischendorf’s text of 1869-1872
2. Westcott and Hort’s text of 1881
3. Bernhard Weiss’ text of 1894-1900

I have in my personal library that third edition of Eberhard Nestle’s Greek text; I also have Tischendorf’s fifth edition of 1878. In 1927, Eberhard Nestle’s son Erwin issued the 13th edition. In 1952, the 21st edition was issued with Kurt Aland as an associate editor, giving us what is now known as the 21st edition of the Nestle-Aland Greek Text. The 26th edition was issued in 1979, the 27th edition was issued in 1993, and the 28th edition was issued in 2012.

The texts of the United Bible Societies (First edition, 1966; Second edition, 1968; Third edition, 1975; Third edition, corrected, 1983; Fourth revised edition, 1993; Fifth revised edition, 2014) are more broadly based, being based upon a larger number of earlier Greek texts, including those of Nestle, Bover, Merk, and Vogels, and to a lesser extent upon the Greek texts of Tischendorf and von Soden. The United Bible Societies Greek text was prepared especially for translators of the Greek New Testament. The primary difference between Nestle-Aland texts and United Bible Societies texts is the critical apparatus, the one included in the Nestle-Aland texts being much more complete. Well over 1,000 other Greek texts of the New Testament have thus far been published.

Since the 1880’s, all of the responsible English translations of the Bible have been translated from a Greek text similar to the contemporaneous editions of these two texts. The NKJV was irresponsibly published to take advantage of a market for a “readable” Bible translated from the Textus Receptus (using the term somewhat broadly). It was an irresponsible business venture because virtually every scholar publishing today in academic journals dealing with textual criticism believes that the Majority Text is not even nearly as accurate as the Critical Text. Are you aware of any such scholars?

 

[PrincetonGuy]

Brooke Foss Westcott and Fenton John Anthony Hort are the two men behind the corrupt Greek text of the new versions. These two men were on the translating committee of the Revised Version(RV). By reading these two men's quotes any Christian would agree that these two men were heretics.

For time sake, I will not quote all of their quotes, but leave it up to the reader to research these men. Here are just some of the false beliefs of these men. Both did not believe in the infallibility or authority of the Holy Scriptures. They denied the deity of the Lord Jesus Christ and did not believe in a literal eternal Hell. Both denied the literal account of creation in Genesis. Westcott believed in the worship of Mary, while Hort said that the worship of Mary and Jesus had a lot in common. Hort believed in the Roman Catholic sacraments and taught baptismal regeneration. Westcott did not believe in the literal Second Coming of Jesus Christ, nor believed in a literal heaven. Hort did not believe in the Trinity, nor believed in literal angels. Hort attacked the doctrine of substitution also. The list goes on and on, but I will stop there.

Those are the men behind the new version's Greek text and after examining their beliefs one can see why the new versions corrupt major doctrines, such as the deity of Jesus Christ. Understand that it is not just the ESV that uses the W&H text, but all the other new versions, such as the NIV, NASV, ASV, RV, RSV, NCV, etc.

Radicalized Christian fundamentalists in the KJO camp routinely use the dishonest and malicious tactic of character assassination to “find” fault with translations of the Bible that are far more accurate than the KJV; but after nearly 70 years of research they have not found even one instance in which the character or theology of Westcott or Hort influenced the quality of their work.

 

[Job8]

So, I would be interested in hearing your arguments about if I should switch right this second to the King James or if it is all blown out of proportion or just whatever insight y'all might be able to provide.

Nothing is blown out of proportion. All modern "bible versions" since 1881 are translated from "critical texts" which in turn are based exclusively on manuscripts corrupted by Gnostics. There are major attacks on almost all Bible doctrines in these manuscripts. That is the strongest argument against modern versions.

Therefore your only recourse is to stick with the King James Bible (since the Geneva Bible, which is equally reliable, has generally been replaced with the KJB). One could go into a lot of detail, but you can do your own research and confirm this for yourself. As to the lame excuse that the KJV is "incomprehensible", that's not worth bothering with.

I have come to the conclusion that it is a sheer waste of time to try and convince those who have latched on to the new versions that they are basically corrupt. But since you are open to advice, consider this very seriously.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

There are major attacks on almost all Bible doctrines in these manuscripts.

Not true!

That is the strongest argument against modern versions.

True!