Featured What are the true differences between the KJV and other versions?

I can appreciate where you are going with your line of inquiry. Factually, neither the KJV nor any other translation has been made from over 5,000 manuscripts; they are made from a few printed critical (collated) texts. Additionally, it is not technically possible to meaningfully state that any translation (even raw interlinear) agrees "word-for-word" with it's source text, for multiple reasons, perhaps the most obvious is that most languages just do not contain exact equivalency for many terms. Logically, that should be enough to put a stop to your friend's assertion right away.

But for the moment let us entertain for the suggestion behind your friend's misinformation. It would be equally true that an accurate translation from the same source text (TR Greek) using more than 1% different English words than the those of the KJV (now think NKJV) could still make the same claim: that this other translation is also within 99% of the source text. In other words, each translation could be within 1% of the original source but yet be 2% or more apart from each other. I can imagine many different English translations all of which would be different from one another but within 1% of the TR. Oh! I don't have to image them. They've already been produced! Can we possibly think the KJV and Bishop's Bible are only 1% different from one another?

While it is possible to determine the differences between two English translations, the data only describes the difference between the two translations and says nothing about accuracy toward the source text (as I've written above). So, it has not been done often because it is a lot of work and doesn't really prove anything. Mostly those few comparisons have been shown against the KJV text (with the assumption being that the KJV is accurate and/or is some sort of defacto standard in English).

 

Are you implying that God had no power to preserve the specific words that He gave by inspiration to the prophets and apostles?

According to what proper definition of the word preservation and according to what consistent view of preservation, would different words in a different language be a preservation of the actual specific words that God gave by inspiration to the prophets and apostles?

Are you actually arguing for some type of dynamic equivalent meaning preservation instead of word preservation?

Are you suggesting that the word of truth did not exist until 1611 or that God in effect failed to preserve the Scriptures He gave to the prophets and apostles and had to regive them in 1611?

The Scriptures were translated into English long before 1611. Are you suggesting that the pre-1611 English Bibles were not the word of truth?

 

From a KJVO mindset they would perhaps say that translations in English prior to the KJV were essentially rough drafts - within the framework of acceptability but not yet perfect. "But when the perfect comes..."

 

To Jeremiah33:3--

Welcome to the Baptist Board. I hope you stay awhile and bless and be blessed.

Please listen to a little bit of advice, though. If this is your first time on an Internet forum, there are some items of politeness that perhaps you ought to consider: (1) Changing the topic of a thread from the OP (opening post) is not considered polite. (2) Posting in huge letters as you have done is considered "shouting," and actually hurts your cause. (3) Long posts such as yours are very difficult to answer. I couldn't even get the "quote" feature to work on your posts.

Our beloved KJV tells us to love one another. Someone has said that "politeness is love in trifles, and love is no trifle."

God bless.

John of Japan

 

Thanks for the welcome & your right, sorry for coming across obnoxiously.

 

I just believe what I believe I hope your not offended but it seems like there may have been a time in your life when you made the determination to believe the NIV, ESV, NKJV etc. and if that is the case then this debate will go nowhere. I personally believe that the alexandrian line of the modern bibles are corrupt.

Anyone can debate creation vs evolution the same way it just comes down to why did you come to your belief? Was it the scriptures that led you to your belief?

There are those who hold to the theory that God only preserved His Word in the original languages and in the original autographs. They would say that since chapter and verse divisions were added later by man’s hand, that they could not be inspired. However, the entire Bible has been given to us through the hands of men throughout history. There is not one place in the entire canon of Scripture that tells us we ought to be doubters of the Word; textual critics; “improving” on inspired translations; that we have to learn Hebrew and Greek in order to understand what the Bible “really” means; or that we have to in some way pry the minds of the contemporaries of the Biblical authors in order to find out what the Bible meant to them. The Bible itself tells us that it is written for our generation.
(2 Pet 1:12) "Wherefore I will not be negligent to put you always in remembrance of these things, though ye know them, and be established in the present truth."
Oh, by the way, the word “truth” is found in 222 verses of the Bible! Also, the word “wisdom” is found in 222 verses of the Bible!
Consider the book of wisdom - the book of Proverbs. You will find the word wise exactly 66 (22x3) in the book of Proverbs. You will also find that all the forms of the word know are found exactly 66 times in the book of Proverbs. Maybe it would be too much to ask, but I looked, and in the book of Proverbs you will find all the forms of the word understand exactly 66 times in the book of Proverbs. How many books are there in the Bible?

 

This according to one of the authors of the newer translations.

Dr. Frank Logsdon - who lead the translation of the New American Standard Version. He now renounces the work he did in the NASV and said "I'm afraid I'm in trouble with the Lord." He now concludes that a faulty Greek manuscript was used in the new versions. He now believes that the KJV is absolutely correct.

Straight from the horses mouth.

 

It is a fact that the verse divisions were added later. There are not found in the preserved original language manuscripts.

The 1560 Geneva Bible was the first English translation to have verse divisions with verse numbers. In a few places those divisions and numbers differ from those added in the KJV.

 

Frank Logsdon was not one of the translators of the NASB and did not lead in the making of that translation. You are misinformed.

 

In Gail Riplinger's book she had one of those side-by-side verse comparison charts between the KJV and the MV's and in an effort to show that words were missing from the MV's she must have deliberately misquoted verses from the NASB because when I looked up those verses her "missing words" were actually in the NASB!

I thought it was the most underhanded thing I'd ever seen in attempting to advance the KJVO cause but this so-called confession of the NASB translation committee head comes close.

Of course, in Riplinger's case it could have been scholarly incompetence and laziness and not deliberate deception.

 

Be not hasty in thy spirit to be angry: for anger resteth in the bosom of fools.

Why are you angry?

What spirit is making you angry that someone wants to believe God's word?

I thank God he has blessed me with the faith to believe his word and I by no means think that because I believe God's word to be pure that I am some how any better than you.

 

The reason was given in her post:

Many of the adherents are told something, they don't search it to see if it's real and pass it on as fact. Yet if they took 2 seconds (how long it took for my Google search to return the answer to this argument), they would find the truth. The truth is not hidden at all - but many refuse to look for it.

She's not angry that people want to believe God's word. She's angry that people want to believe falsehoods about KJVO.

 

what is false about Believing the King James Bible?

I mean this sincerely, Please help me understand the bitterness towards KJVO.

would you feel the same way toward an NIVO, NKJVO, NASBO, ESVO, NLTO?

Why does the KJV catch all the static? Why not a simple "God bless you keep reading brother"?


Should you not as a brother or sister say "More power to ya!!"

Do you think my soul is endanger by only believing the KJV?

Is it possible the Modern versions are dangeerous?

shouldnt we all agree?

 

A couple of quick observations --

The word "counting" is not in the original Hebrew, but is an added word by the translation team (it is therefore italicized in the actual KJV text).

I notice that "preserve" and "forever" are also the first and last word of Psalm 16 in the NASB. What does that mean?

 

Think that MT and the CT agree probably around 85-90 % of the time , at least a high percentage of times, while their disagreements are relatively minor...

NO Greek text , regardless if used, would result in errors in the translation IF properily done right, at least nothing that means major doctrines are affected!

And question for those against the CT, and for TR... Without the originals, how can you decide which is actually closest to them? Aren't they assuming corruptions intentionally placed their by evil persons, trying to delude thechurch?

 

Happy to be of help. :wavey:

It's Fri. morning here. After breakfast and devotions with Patty I'm going to work on revising the book of Ephesians in the 3rd draft. I'll start by collating (comparing) the TR and the UBS Greek NTs, then get back to you with actual percentage figures which you can tell your friend come from an ind. Baptist translator.

 

Good answer. God bless! :type: