Featured A better English Bible.

The Variants are on each page in the print edition. I recommend the Hard back. But the paperback is priced right. The readers edition does not have the footnotes.

 

Or, in the Gospels, God preserved William Tyndales Version in the KJV. Mostly anyway.

 

It doesn't say lake of fire now does it?... Are there literal prisons?... And in the same thought are there spiritual prisons also... These are both discipleship text's and they have nothing to do with the eternal... You can be killed to your fellowship with God and cast into outer darkness and it will be like a living hell... The children of God are being forewarned but their eternal standing is not in jeopardy.

I thought I understood the the second but have since changed my mind by delving more into it and its not the hell I thought it was... It is also a parable involving two children of God, the one in torment, is in a living hell serving the law, no doubt Jewish he can't live up to, the other is in the grace of God and looks to Christ alone who fulfilled it... Their eternal standing is not in jeopardy either... Brother Glen

Btw... Hell is also called the grave

 

Then there was Darrell, Iconoclast and now Alan... Oh well!... Brother Glen

 

We seem to be hung up on a false dichotomy, how to improve the English translation of God's word, and (2) which of the current English translations should we advocate.

But there seems to be little discussion of specific improvements that could be made, given the modern consensus of most probable meaning.

Here is John 3:16, God loved humanity in this way, He gave His uniquely divine Son so that everyone believing into Him would not perish but have everlasting life.

This version is not found in any of the 60 or so English translations.

1) Why translate the obvious meaning of humanity as "world?"
2) Why translate "monogenes" as one and only or begotten? The word means one of a kind or unique.
3) Why translate "eis" as "in" rather than its actual literal meaning of "into?"
4) Why translate life with a beginning but no end the same way life is translated with no beginning and no end? Why not use everlasting for life with God for humans, and eternal for God's lifespan, with no beginning or end.

Similar questions can be asked all through the NT, but the only defense for continuing poor translation choices seems to be people once accepting a particular translation as God's truth do not want to accept that their understanding was off the mark.

 

Some of the translations of the bible that we see in circulation are to say the least questionable.

But whatever language the bible is translated into it still comes down to what bible will people read. If a person has to struggle with the text, 1769 KJV, then they will set it aside for a modern translation. The text that is now in the KJV is not the 1611 text but rather the 1769 Blayney revision, in spite of the fact that the modern preface often states the 1611 publication date

Since 1769 many more manuscripts have been found and these have added to the scholarly understanding of the text. So when you consider that the KJV has gone through five versions, 1611, 1629, 1638, 1762 & 1769 and that we now have more and better manuscripts, it seems for one to hold the KJV up as the gold standard for translation of the word of God is based more on personal preference.

 

Some post-1900 KJV editions were based on the 1873 Cambridge edition of Scrivener instead of on the 1769. There are also the 2005 and 2011 Cambridge editions by David Norton that are not based on the 1769.

The text in the great majority of post-1900 KJV editions is not the 1769 Oxford Blayney revision. Many of them may be based on the 1769, but they are not identical in their English text to the 1769. Over 400 changes or revisions have been made to the 1769 Oxford Blayney revision in typical varying present or post-1900 KJV editions. In 90 to 100 places, most post-1900 KJV editions differ from the 1769 Oxford in LORD/Lord or GOD/God renderings. The "God" in the 1611 edition at 2 Samuel 12:22 was not corrected to "GOD" until the 1829 or 1835 Oxford edition. The 1769 Oxford edition introduced the new error "Zithri" at Exodus 6:21 from the last word of Exodus 6:22, and that new error remained uncorrected in most Oxford and Cambridge editions of the KJV until the 1873 Cambridge. Some other places where the 1769 Oxford would differ from most post-1900 KJV editions include the following Old Testament examples: “Heman” (Gen. 36:22), “thy progenitors” (Gen. 49:26), “Zithri” (Exod. 6:21), “travel’ (Num. 20:14), “brakedst” (Deut. 10:2), “thy tithe” (Deut. 12:17), “thy earth” (Deut. 12:19), “the widow’s” (Deut. 24:17), “Beer-sheba, Sheba” (Josh. 19:2), “children of Gilead” (Jud. 11:7), “all the coast” (Jud. 19:29), “in a straight“ (1 Sam. 13:6), “Shimei“ (1 Chron. 6:30), “whom God alone” (1 Chron. 29:1), “on the pillars” (2 Chron. 4:12), “thy companions’ (Job 41:6), “unto me“ (Ps. 18:47), “my foot” (Ps. 31:8), “feared” (Ps. 60:4), “in the presence” (Ps. 68:2), “part“ (Ps. 78:66), “When there were” (Ps. 105:12), “gates of iron” (Ps. 107:16), “the latter end” (Prov. 19:20), “riches, honour” (Prov. 22:4), “king of Jerusalem” (Eccl. 1:1), “gone to” (Isa. 15:2), “travel‘ (Lam. 3:5), “a brier” (Micah 7:4), and “mighty is spoiled” (Zech. 11:2). In the New Testament, examples include “And in the same” (Luke 7:21), “ye enter not” (Luke 11:52), “lifted“ (Luke 16:23), “and the truth” (John 14:6), “the names” (Acts 1:15), “Now if do” (Rom. 7:20), “not in unbelief” (Rom. 11:23), “the earth” (1 Cor. 4:13), “was done“ (2 Cor. 3:11), “about” (2 Cor. 12:2), “you were inferior” (2 Cor. 12:13), “those who” (Gal. 2:6), “the holy apostles” (Eph. 3:5), “broidered” (1 Tim. 2:9), “sprinkled likewise” (Heb. 9:21), “our joy” (1 John 1:4), and several missing words at Revelation 18:22.

 

…we do not deny, nay we affirm and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set forth by men of our profession (for we have seen none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) contains the word of God, nay, is the word of God.

As the King’s Speech which he uttered in Parliament, being translated into French, Dutch, Italian and Latin, is still the King’s Speech, though it be not interpreted by every Translator with the like grace, nor peradventure so fitly for phrase, nor so expressly for sense, everywhere.

No cause therefore why the word translated should be denied to be the word, or forbidden to be current, notwithstanding that some imperfections and blemishes may be noted in the setting forth of it.

KJV Preface

 

And this just adds to what I had posted. The KJV has been altered by men but it still retains the intent of God. Just as the NASB, NKJV, BSB, NET etc. do.

It is not a matter if someone wishes to use the KJV but to say it is the only one that has retained the word of God is just plain foolish.

That is why it is better to go back to the oldest and best manuscripts we have so that we do retain the word of God as best we can. The English Language has evolved and meaning of words have changed so the language used in the text of bibles has to evolve also.

 

And who is going to be the one to decide on this? We have scholars that are well versed in the old languages and they do not even agree at this point in time.

 

That did not address the problem of who is to be the judge of what is correct?