King James Version Bible vs. Modern english bible

King James I had a great deal of influence over the making of the KJV since he made or approved the rules for the translating and since he appointed Archbishop Richard Bancroft to oversee the translating.

Some of the rules for the making of the KJV in effect required that some renderings in some of the pre-1611 English Bibles such as Tyndale's and the 1537 Matthew's Bible had to be altered.

Some renderings in the pre-1611 English Bibles which were used to support congregational church government were altered in the KJV to renderings that were more favorable to Church of England episcopal church government.

 

I'm not about to dispute a chart.

Here is a quote from the statement from the preface of the ESV:

“Would you believe it took nearly 500 years to translate the ESV Bible? That’s because the ESV builds on the great translations of the past—including William Tyndale’s New Testament of 1526 and the King James Version (KJV) of 1611.”
(Preface, ESV)​

One can spend a lifetime in throngs of bias concerning the matter of what text is "the best."

What is important is that not a single doctrinal issue is raised between the translations (KJV, NKJV, ESV, NASB) as a determination of error. They are ALL reliable, and ALL profitable, as the Scriptures for "...doctrine, reproof, correction, for instruction in righteousness..."

Note: I am not a personal fan of the NIV. I just don't like it or the CSB. It is a matter of personal preference, and not a standard for others to adopt.

Now, that the thread is properly in this section, I will leave it to others who like this subject far more than myself.

 

Your statement here on those 4 translation all being the word of God to us for today hits the nail on the head!

 

The fact the fact that the translators rejected the Apocrypha is evident from the fact that they supplied 7 reasons to leave it out:

1. Not one of them is in the Hebrew language, which was alone used by the inspired historians and poets of the Old Testament. ​

2. Not one of the writers lays any claim to inspiration. ​

3. These books were never acknowledged as sacred Scriptures by the Jewish Church, and therefore were never sanctioned by our Lord. ​

4. They were not allowed a place among the sacred books, during the first four centuries of the Christian Church.

5. They contain fabulous statements, and statements which contradict not only the canonical Scriptures, but themselves; as when, in the two Books of Maccabees, Antiochus Epiphanes is made to die three different deaths in as many different places.

6. It inculcates doctrines at variance with the Bible, such as prayers for the dead and sinless perfection. ​

7. It teaches immoral practices, such as lying, suicide, assassination and magical incantation.​

Source: The Answer Book by Samuel C. Gipp | Evangelist Samuel C. Gipp, Th.D. | A Friend to Churches Ministries

As for King James, I demonstrated his thoughts on the Apocrypha in a previous post.

 

No doctrinal differences? Perhaps, but the modern versions are weaker on some doctrines. Using one of them is fighting with a blunted sword.

 

Your title says "Modern English Bible", is this a singular version that you have in mind, or "all modern versions"?

The "Textus Receptus", or "Received Text", is only a "version" of the Holy Bible, which is itself based on manuscripts, most of which were quite late in date. But this does not mean that they are any inferior to those that are of an earlier date. People should not get too carried away with the name Textus Receptus, as though it had some special "blessing" from the Lord when complied. It was first used in 1633 (after the King James Version of 1611), by Bonaventure and Abraham Elzevir, in their Greek edition of the New Testament, "Textum ergo habes, nunc ab omnibus receptum", in English, "So has the text which all now receive". The history of the making of the KJV is interesting, seeing that it is based on textual versions of Cardinal Ximenes, of the Roman Catholic Church, in the 15th century. Also importantly is the Greek editions by Desiderius Erasmus, of the same time, and a humanist. The KJV itself has gone through a number of "revisions" after the 1611 edition. It remains as one of the best English versions of all time, but cannot be used as though it were itself the "only" version that we must use, as it will always be, a VERSION, which cannot ever be classed as being "inspired" as the original autographs were.

While I have great respect for the version that my country (England) gave the world, I would be very foolish in my studies, if I only used the KJV as my "source" for arriving at the truth on textual matters. It is evident from discoveries of Greek manuscripts that date within 100 years after Jesus Christ, and the evidence of the early Church "fathers", and other ancient language versions, that some of the "Modern" versions do add some value, not only to the "style" of the Bible in English, but also some very important textual variants that were not available to the KJV. Two such examples are, 1. John 1:18, which I very much believe that English versions like the ESV, NLT, and NIV, adopt the textual reading that is the original. Instead of "μονογενὴς υἱὸς" (Unique Son), we have "μονογενὴς θεὸς" (Unique God). Two of the oldest Greek Papyri Manuscripts, the P66 and P75 read, "θεὸς", which date some 200 years before the Greek Codex Alexandrinus, Manuscript, of the 5th century A.D. The KJV is also wrong in rendering the Greek, "μονογενὴς", by "only begotten", which the Greek word does not mean. Had John wished to say "only begotten", then he would have employed the correct Greek word for this purpose, which is, "μονογέννητος". "μονογενὴς", is a compound word, from "μόνος and γένος", which literally means, "one of a kind", or "unique", no "begetting" in it. So, some of the "Modern versions" get this right. The other passage is from Jude 5, which again I believe the KJV's reading is the incorrect one. Instead of the TR's "κύριος" (Lord), the reading with "Ἰησοῦς" (Jesus) is the original, which English versions like , ESV, NLT, CSB, BLB, Douay-Rheims, use in their text. Compare this with 1 Corinthians 10:9, which the KJV is right on using, "Χριστόν" (Christ), with Numbers 21:6, is a very clear text for the Deity of Jesus Christ, as He is here identified as Yahweh, the "eternal, self-existing" God! Another important Christological text which is clarified in "Modern versions", is Titus 2:14, where the KJV has it, "Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ". This gives rise to the possibility of 2 Persons being meant, "the great God", as the Father, and "our Lord Jesus Christ". The Greek is, " προσδεχόμενοι τὴν μακαρίαν ἐλπίδα καὶ ἐπιφάνειαν τῆς δόξης τοῦ μεγάλου θεοῦ καὶ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ", which in accordance with strict rules of Greek grammar, show that only ONE Person is here meant, the Lord Jesus Christ. This has been "corrected" to the right English, "waiting for our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ". The same Greek construction is used in 2 Peter 2:1, where again the KJV is not clear, when it says, "of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ", which is better rendered, "of our God and Savior Jesus Christ". only ONE Person is meant, the Lord Jesus Christ, Who is clearly seen as Almighty God.

Soli Deo gloria!

 

The Nasb actually supports the Deity of Jesus better than the Kjv itself in some places, did you know that?

 

Very interesting, as the Grandvile-Sharp Rules can support those last points of yours, as the author was meaning God and Savior to be taken as Jesus Himself!
Also interesting that many rail out about Catholic monks distorting Alexandrian manuscripts, or Greek texts were somehow compiled and rigged by Church of Rome as in UBS, and yet Erasmus took Vulgate renderings and used Roman manuscripts, how much more Catholic could that get?

 

However, for the clearest text on the Deity of Jesus Christ, 1 Timothy 3:16, and for the Holy Trinity, 1 John 5:7, the KJV, and some "Moderns" have it 100% right. the NASB sadly fails in both.

 

I do not think that 1JN 5:7 was in the original letter from the Apostle though!

 

check out my own study on the Greek grammar on the entire passage, where I have shown that the disputed words have to form part of the original. If they are removed, there are huge grammatical problems in the Greek text.

http://www.trinitystudies.org/Trinity/1jn5.6-10.pdf

 

I would love to go into this further, but I unfortunately don’t have many written resources. In fact, the only KJVO book I have is Crowned With Glory by Dr. Thomas Holland.

He says the Apocrypha wasn’t even mentioned on the title page, which read “The Holy Bible, Conteyning the Old Testament, and the New.” Furthermore, they were not given the elaborate engravings of the Testaments, nor were they given the content summaries that went along the top of the page, (p. 94).

I would only be able to go further into this once I’ve gotten books like Gustavus Paine’s The Men Behind the King James Version and Vance’s King James, His Bible, and It’s Translators.

 

For those who have time, they can read my research on the difference between the Protestant and Roman Catholic Canon (Books) of the Old Testament and why the "extra books" were rejected.

THE CANON OF THE OLD TESTAMENT BOOKS

 

I checked it out, and while not totally convicing to me, you did bring out aspects that I have not encountered before in your paper, and does has some definite solid points to use to bolster your argument!

 

I would be interested to know what did not convince you, so that I can reexamine the evidence again, in case I missed something?

 

Here is a little video on the history of the KJV and other English Bibles. Very good video by a great pastor from the Bible Museum in AZ.

 

Those reasons are not listed in the 1611 edition of the KJV, and they have not been demonstrated to be actually stated by the KJV translators themselves. Sam Gipp's KJV-only book is not a reliable source.