KJV vs. modern Bible Versons

Hi livin'intheword (Paula). I want very much to try to keep this on an intellectual level and not resort to name calling or other such childish behavior. I believe that there are other translations that are legitimate and I would like to try to explain why. If you wish to reject my arguments, that is fine, but this will give you an idea of where many other people come from. (Well, at least me.)

The biggest complaint about the KJV is that it was translated from a different set of manuscripts. This is partially true, but not entirely. There are, so called, Alexandrian documents which have been used in later translations because these documents have been proven to be older and therefore possibly (note I said possibly) more accurate due to their age. The typical argument is that they come from an evil area in Egypt and therefore could not be maintained or copied accurately. This is not necessarily true. During the time when Rome was essentially ruling the world (we won't get into Greece here) many Jews left and formed colonies, many of these in Egypt where they were accepted by the local governments. I cannot recall the names of these Jews, but they were mostly very, very religious and extremely concerned about preserving the integrity of their Bible. These Jews were the ones who kept and copied the Alexandrian documents, so we have to assume that the documents are at least on par with the Byzantine documents kept in Israel, but the earliest documents we could find were from a much later date.

First, let me make a few statements.

Fact: Jesus Christ usually quoted from the Septuagint when He quoted scripture.

Fact: Many quotations in the Bible (New Testament) came directly from the Septuagint.

As we know, the Septuagint was a Greek version of the Old Testament used by the Jews because Greek became either their second tongue or their native tongue during the Greecian movement across the country a few years before. This seems to indicate to us that Jesus recognized the Septuagint as a legimate document and most new MVs recognize and compare their translations to the Septuagint. Even the NIV (which is NOT my favorite MV) mentions the Septuagint often in footnotes indicated whether or not a phrase is included in the Septuagint. (Or the LXX because rumor has it it was translated by 70 men.)

Now, where am I going from here (I'm not sure I know, I get to rambling.) My entire point though is that the MVs DO have differences in some of their wording, but NOT because of the translator's decision or point of view, but because these older documents which were not available to the King James translators simply have differences in their copies. Remember, we have NO original manuscripts and only God knows which manuscripts contain the most accurate information; however, by comparing hundreds and hundreds of documents (probably about 5000) scholars of today have tried to determine which documents were closest to the original manuscripts based on a science called "textual criticism". This is difficult to explain, but it includes looking at the "date" of the manuscripts. The "location" where the manuscript was found and also how many other manuscripts "match" with the same words. By also comparing these with the Septuagint we are pretty certain that the Old Testament has been maintained with a large degree of accuracy. With the number of manuscripts passed around to the early churches, way before the Bible was combined from the individual books, we also have a pretty good idea of what was correct on the New Testament. Some people, like Dr. Cassidy, may argue that the Byzantine documents seem to be more accurate. This is fine and is a result of much study; however, there are also other people who have spent years of study who disagree and feel that the Byzantine documents were copied by so called "copy mills" where dozens of documents were made causing a LOT of documents to be available, but due to the speed and requirements of the copy writers there may be errors.

The main issue that Pastor Larry was trying to get across, and he is VERY knowledgeable in this area is that these arguments have been hashed and rehashed and have previously been answered and therefore he does not feel the need to recopy all of these arguments. He also makes an extremely Good argument is that ALL of the doctrine in the KJV is maintained in good quality in the GOOD MVs. (Notice I said good--meaning "mainstream" such as NIV, NASB, ESV, etc.) The GN Bible is NOT a good example and therefore we would prefer to not even discuss it. But, if you will buy a good parallel Bible with three or four translations and actually read carefully EACH translation on each page you read, you will find that the doctrinal issue is correct and even though words may be different or even left out, the doctrine of Jesus, the Son of the Living God is still in-tact.

Now, I wish to ask you a few questions that I have asked many many times to KJVO individuals and nobody seems to want to answer them specifically one at a time.

1. I have a 1614 copy of a King James Bible. It is NOT the King James that we read today. Its spelling, punctuation and even wording is entirely different and it is my guess that you would have great difficulty even reading one page of this Bible (and it IS in the old English). This is a version of the 1611 KJV and shows that it is NOT the version we read today. The version we read today was modified in the 18th century. Why was the need to modify the original 1611 KJV?

2. Surprisingly, the KJV was an upgrade or later version of the Bishop's Bible. It was NOT translated alone and much of its authorship came straight from the Bishop's Bible. This means that it was not a direct Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek translation.

3. The KJV Bible is truly not that old when we consider the length of time since Christ walked on the earth. Why would 300 years make this Bible a truly inspired book? Plus, the KJV was translated along with the apocrypha (the books used by Catholics) at the time our accepted books were translated. Why would God "inspire" these translators to translate books which we have not accepted as Biblical canon if he inspired the other books--or to put it another way--why would he even allow them to translate the apocrypha, knowing that it is not the accepted Word of God? This to me indicates that the translators themselves (although very good at their jobs) were not inspired during the translation process.

4. There are errors even in the KJV when compared to its OWN documents. These are translational errors which occur when any document is translated. If you are saying the translators were inspired does this mean that Chinese, Japanese, Spanish and Portuguese Bibles of today are in error or were they "inspired" too?

5. Why would you think that the translators were inspired? I notice you said some things regarding the lives of the NIV translators---can you give me your assurance that every single translator that King James assigned from the English Anglican church were ALL upstanding Christians? I think history will show that this is not the fact.

6. Where in the Bible itself does it say that the KJV is an inspired translation? If you feel that the KJV is inspired--where do you get your information? As far as I am concerned, the ESV is just as accurate as the King James (I want to be clear here -- I think the KJV is a great translation, but not the ONLY one.), so why is my opinion that the ESV probably has translational errors any different than your opinion that the KJV does not have? Do you have a straight pipeline to God telling you otherwise? (I am not trying to be mean--just thought provoking.)

I have written a novel here so let's go from here and see where we can go and then we will continue if there is further debate.

I do want to say that regardless of your feelings about the KJV, I respect you and I will always pray for you. We are Christians and I personally have been ashamed at the way this thread has degraded to a third grade (not your fault) level. I hope we can keep this strictly on an "issue" level and keep the personalities out of the way. If you can give me good answers to my questions, I will be open minded--I promise that. Oh, one last question before I forget. Where was the "inspired" Bible before the King James Version was printed? Did we go 1600 years since Christ without an inspired version?

God Bless you and I look forward to your discussion.

[ November 15, 2001: Message edited by: Phillip ]

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Phillip:
These Jews were the ones who kept and copied the Alexandrian documents, so we have to assume that the documents are at least on par with the Byzantine documents kept in Israel, but the earliest documents we could find were from a much later date.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Two points. The Alexandrian textform was not copied by Jews. It is the work of Christians in or near the city of Alexandria, in Egypt. There may have been some saved Jews as part of that church, but it was not exclusively Jewish. Secondly, the Byzantine texts were not kept in Israel. Israel had ceased to exist as a nation 30 years prior to the closing of the canon. The Byzantine textform was the textform of Byzantium, hence the name Byzantine. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Fact: Jesus Christ usually quoted from the Septuagint when He quoted scripture.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>This is not only not a fact, it is an unprovable assertion. The oldest existing manuscript of the septuagint is Codex Vaticanus (B) dating to 350 AD, over 300 years after the time of Christ. The only septuagint manuscript which dates prior to 350 AD is the Ryland Papyrus #458 which contains only portions of 5 chapters of Deuteronomy in Greek, none of which are quoted by Christ in the NT. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Fact: Many quotations in the Bible (New Testament) came directly from the Septuagint.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Fiction. See above. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>My entire point though is that the MVs DO have differences in some of their wording, but NOT because of the translator's decision or point of view, but because these older documents which were not available to the King James translators simply have differences in their copies.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Again, this is myth, not fact. The reading of the Alexandrian textform were available to not only the KJV translators but also to Erasmus when he compiled his Greek New Testament. (See Kenyon, "Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts" London, 1896, page 133) <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>1. I have a 1614 copy of a King James Bible. It is NOT the King James that we read today. Its spelling, punctuation and even wording is entirely different and it is my guess that you would have great difficulty even reading one page of this Bible (and it IS in the old English). This is a version of the 1611 KJV and shows that it is NOT the version we read today. The version we read today was modified in the 18th century. Why was the need to modify the original 1611 KJV?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>The editions of 1611, 1613, et al, are the same as we have today. The type face is different, the punctuation and spelling has been modernized, and printers errors have been corrected, but the text is essentially the same. In fact, there are only 136 changes of substance that a person would notice if I were reading my 1611 from the pulpit and they were following along in their Cambridge 1762, and virtually all of those changes can be explained as corrections of printer's errors.

Also, the KJV was not Old English. Old English passed into oblivian around 1100. Old English is so very different from Modern English it is not recognizable as the same language. John 3:16 in Old English: "God lufode middan-eard swa', daet he sealde his 'an-cennedan sunu, daet nan ne forweorde de on hine gelyfp, ac haebbe dact 'ece lif." That is nothing like the KJV which is Modern English.

The KJV today is the same as the KJV of 1611 with the exception of type face, spelling, punctuation, and the correction of printer's errors and other errata. To claim it is "entirely different" is to make a false claim.

I have snipped the rest for it is mostly straw man argumentation, and other errata concerning what KJV defenders believe.

 

Sadly those who hold to these versions will say things like "They didn't tamper with that in ...(you pick which parallel verse)now did they?" Like if its only a little preverted its ok.

 

livin'intheword said:

Ok shall we take a look at the NASV? I think we should.

You mean the NASB?

A) the NASV questions the Eternal pre-existence of Christ by tampering with Micha 5:2, removing the word "everlasting"

This particular translation has been the subject of debate on the BB lately, so I'll concede the point (not that I am conceding that this disqualifies the NASB [not V] or proves there's anything special about the KJV by comparison)

Now, which would you say best decribes our Lord. I take you to John 1:1

Which, oddly enough, is worded identically in the NASB (not V), thereby nullifying your point in any case!

B) The NASV removes the assertion of our Lord's virgin birth in Matthew 1:25

Too funny! I suppose that by the time we reach 1:25, we're supposed to have forgotten what we read in 1:18-23!

C)The NASV removes reference to our Lord's Bodily Resurrection in Luke 24:40

The NASB (not V, 1995 version) omits nothing in 24:40.

Maybe the earlier edition of the NASB (not V) omits this portion of the verse, but again this is a case of the KJV-onlyists giving readers no credit for intelligence, as 24:39 reads:
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>See My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself; touch Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
And 24:41-43 reads:
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>While they still could not believe it because of their joy and amazement, He said to them, "Have you anything here to eat?" They gave Him a piece of a broiled fish; and He took it and ate it before them.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
But darnit, I guess that if the NASB (not V) doesn't say so in one verse smucked in the middle of those two passages, it must not be true.

Seriously, though . . . do you KJV zealots think we're morons or something?

D) The NASV omits the salvation exclusice to faith In Christ, in John6:47

Again, livin' proves that she thinks we're idiots and wouldn't have read 6:40 first or have an attention span of about half a second and would have forgotten what it says before we got to 6:47.

F) The NASV eliminates Christ's title "Son of God" IN John 9:35

Anyone who has done his homework knows that "Son of Man" is a clear Messianic reference (cf. Dan. 7:13). Don't let the KJV zealots snow you with their empty rhetoric.

G) The NASV Removes the title of "Lord" from Christ in 1 Corinthians 15:47

Here livin' is dishonest with her citations:

KJV: " the Lord from heaven"
NASV: " the second man from heaven"

The KJV really says: "the second man is the Lord from heaven" (1 Cor. 15:47, emphasis added). The KJV does not escape the same accusation as livin' levels against the NASB (not V), though she did try to hide that fact.

H)The NASV eliminates reference to our Lord's Incarnation in 1 Tim. 3:16

Incorrect. There is no logical antecedent for the pronoun "he" in 3:16, except for God. The two versions say the same thing only in different words (furthermore, the textual foundation for the KJV and NASB (not V) differs here literally by a stroke of the pen).

I) The NASV dilutes the doctrine of the Inspiration of Scripture in the margine of 2 Tim. 3:16

Notice that back in point C, something that was being deprecated was relegated to the margin, but now what is in the margin is more important than what is printed in the text.

Can we say "inconsistency," boys and girls?

Both "all Scripture is inspired by God" and "all God-inspired Scripture" are, from what I understand, valid translations of the same Greek phrase. But in any case, since in context Paul is clearly talking about Holy Writ ("context" being foreign to many alleged Bible believers), the difference between "all Scripture is inspired and profitable" and "all inspired Scripture is profitable" is effectively zero. This is another KJV-only nit-pick that "preaches well" but upon close examination is shown to be without substance.

J) The NASV omits reference to our Lord's ascension in Luke 24:51

Not true, at least in the 1995 update.

But in any case, I guess Luke was too much of a dullard to remember that he was "removing a reference to our Lord's miraculous bodily ascension into heaven." when he wrote Acts 1:2,9-10, right? Or are we all supposed to be too stoopid to remember this?

I knew a lot of KJV-only rhetoric was centred around pretending the skeptics were drooling idiots, but this is getting ridiculous.

Ok I'm sure I'll come up with another version to test in a day or two.

Yes, there's no lack of sophistry from the KJV camp.

What a snow job.

 

Brian said:

Sadly those who hold to these versions will say things like "They didn't tamper with that in ...(you pick which parallel verse)now did they?"

Thereby demonstrating that the conspiracy to pre-vert the Scriptures doesn't really exist.

It's even funnier when the "un-tampered" verse is right next to the "tampered" one, because it proves that the KJV-onlyists are probably just repeating someone else's rhetoric and forgot to do even basic fact-checking.

[Name calling deleted. Final warning]

[ November 15, 2001: Message edited by: Admin5 ]

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by livin'intheword:
Ok shall we take a look at the NASV? I think we should.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think we should call it by its proper name. It is the New American STandard Bible according to the title page.

Your post is once again filled with a boatload of misinformation.

On Micah 5:2 I recommend looking at the last thread on page 2. It may be getting ready to be taken off so you better look quickly. There I showed from the context of Micah 5:2, the theology of Micah, and parallel usages that the NASB's translation is an acceptable one. You are trying to define biblical words by an English dictionary. That is a major faux pas in Bible study. Micah did not use the word everlasting. He used the word 'olam. Therefore, I would recommend doing your word studies using the word 'olam since that is what Micah used.

John 6:47 was likewise dealt with in another thread. The passage is clear that belief is in Christ Jesus. Your argument depends on John not having written vv. 1-46 and 48ff. In other words, if you read the whole chapter, the issue of belief is very clear.

The rest of your verses have to do with textual variants, in which the NASB's rendering is strongly supported by the historical evidence.

 

Pastor Larry said:

Micah did not use the word everlasting. He used the word 'olam. Therefore, I would recommend doing your word studies using the word 'olam since that is what Micah used.

Thanks Larry. I didn't know this was the specific text in this verse in Micah, but I have come across a word study of 'olam before.

In short, the word 'olam does not mean "everlasting" so much as "indefinite." It's not eternal, but it does imply a very long time and sort of an open-ended duration.

For example, God tells Abraham that the covenant of circumcision is an "everlasting [KJV, Heb. 'olam] covenant" (Gen. 17:13). Is circumcision "everlasting"? Certainly not; in fact, the whole letter to the Galatians was specifically written to repudiate the false idea that circumcision was any part of the Christian life, despite Paul's use of the Abrahamic covenant as a type of the New Covenant. Circumcision was a requirement for a long time, but it certainly wasn't "everlasting."

 

Sorry, Dr. Cassidy, but I am going to disagree with your statements. [Ad Hominem edited] I'm very impressed at your quotation of REAL old English--give me time to dig up some books and I can quote a lot of old languages.

You have obviously studied a lot of history during this time, [Ad Hominem edited] DUH! You are right, "Israel" was not an official country at this time. This is NOT the argument (you would make a good lawyer though). [Ad Hominem edited]

Also, you are very incorrect in your statements that Jews were only slightly involved in the Alexandrian documents, but you must also remember that the new MV are not based entirely on a few Alexandrian documents--only compared to a few--so your own argument turns into a straw man.

Do you also believe the KJV is without translational errors and it is inspired? If not you need to make this clear--if so, you also need to make this clear.

[ November 16, 2001: Message edited by: Phillip ]

[ November 16, 2001: Message edited by: Admin5 ]

 

livin'intheword; you need to pay closer attention to my posts. You can compare Bible translations all day long and just because they do not compare with the KJV does not make the KJV accurate and the MV inaccurate. Pay close attention here: The translators of the MVs have at their disposal much older documents than the translators of the KJV had at their disposal. I disagree with Thomas's remarks concerning Jews keeping Alexandrian documents, but these are NOT the main issue when comparing Bibles, they are but a very small part of the equation. All your comparisons do NOT make the book correct simply because it does not quote scripture the way you THINK scripture should be quoted.

You never did answer my questions. I keep asking: Who says, or what verse does it say in the Bible that the KJV is the correct version.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Phillip:
Also, you are very incorrect in your statements that Jews were only slightly involved in the Alexandrian documents, but you must also remember that the new MV are not based entirely on a few Alexandrian documents--only compared to a few--so your own argument turns into a straw man.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Can you supply textual critical evidence to support your allegation that it was Jews, and not Christians, who copied the NT texts in Alexandria in the 4th century AD? And I made no statement concerning the number of "documents" (I suspect you mean either manuscripts or texts) underlying the modern versions. You were making assertions regarding the Septuagint being quoted by Christ. I countered that assertion with the facts concerning the Septuagint papyri. You then made some assertions regarding the different editions of the KJV being "entirely different" which I again countered with facts. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Do you also believe the KJV is without translational errors and it is inspired? If not you need to make this clear--if so, you also need to make this clear.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I have made this clear over and over and over again. Asked and answered.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Phillip:
You never did answer my questions. I keep asking: Who says, or what verse does it say in the Bible that the KJV is the correct version.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>This straw man question has been answered over and over again. There is no verse in the bible mentioning any English version. There is no verse in the bible mentioning Greek or Hebrew texts. There is no verse in the bible mentioning what language the original manuscripts were inspired in. This is not a "give me chapter and verse on that" discussion. This is a discussion of the history of textual transmission, the texts underlying the various English versions, and the relative reliability of those texts. Your question was disingenuous.

It would be just as disingenuous for Paula to ask you to give her chapter and verse that says any modern version or all modern versions are acceptable. No verse in the bible tells you "all modern versions are acceptable." Or "some modern versions are acceptable." No verse in the bible tells you "The New World Translation is not acceptable" but, I suspect you don't use it! And you set it aside without any scripture that says it is not acceptable. Do you have a double standard? Do you demand from Paula what you will not and can not supply to support your own position?

Again, this is a discussion of evidence, not hyperbole.