My response (Teen looking for the right Bible)

That sounds absolutely like a great way of going about it. Just please never come to the conclusion that just one version (any version) is perfect and the rest are all error ridden. I use the ESV mainly and then compare other translations to it. I would say if you have a question on accuracy don't just feel you can turn to the KJV. The NASB, ESV,and ASV are all also very accurate. (In fact the ASV is the most accurate English translation.) But overall your plan sounds like a keeper.

 

Not a bad choice JRG.

 

A CAPITAL idea! Just remember that the KJV translators wrote, in their preface..."Variety of translations Is Profitable for the Understanding of the Sense of the Scriptures".

This, and other extra-textual material is why I recommend obtaining a copy of the AV 1611. The AV translators knew that many Greek or Hebrew words/phrases have several possible English renderings, and that their interpretation wasn't set in stone. Thus, they made their "variety" statement.

 

I would not make the KJV the sole standard of your Bible accuracy because it is not the be-all, end-all of Bible translation (no version is). If your question is of accuracy, I would at minimum also consult the NASB and, if possible, the ESV.

Since you want to be an evangelist in Southern Baptist circles, I would suggest using a modern version as your main text. In future generation, IMO, the use of the KJV will decline, especially among Southern Baptists, because a new generation of people is growing up with modern versions. The KJV is a fine version, but the evolution of the English language is gradually moving it toward disuse. Also, if you want to be an evangelist, the upcoming generations of lost people who can barely if at all comprehend Shakespeare will most likely understand modern language versions better. Using the KJV might create an unnecessary linguistic barrier, even more so in the near future.

 

JRG39402, I would say that is a very reasonable conclusion. Others have mentioned the NASB and ESV which are excellent translations and two that I use often. The NIV and NKJV are two other translations you should consider.

I also recommend the NRSV but many on this forum would disagree with me. All of them are found in the website www.studylight.org which also has greek and hebrew textual information.

 

I would say use the KJV and NASB, since they are the most accurate versions from the 2 main text forms.

Between them, you should have everything you need

 

If you are indeed going to PCC I recommend that while at school you stick to one version only - the KJV.

 

I agree. You sound very wise.

 

Indeed. You may run into a lot of unneeded hostility if you don't.

The KJB is a fine choiche for your primary Bible. Just remember that an evangelist will sometimes run into folks who find the English of that particular translation difficult to understand.

 

Young students must learn what are the differences, what are the controversies surrounding them, how to explain the difference, how to defend the truth, What has been preserved by God, and so on. Without having the comparison, it is impossible for anyone to know those things.

Important and Fundamental difference between KJV and other modern versions is not the vocabulary, but the fact that the basic texts upon which they are based are different each other far away, like East and West.
KJV is based on Ben Chayyim Masoretic Text and Textus Receptus/Majority Text, while Modern versions are based on Ben Asher/Septuagint and Minority Text.
Vocabularies, Language Update, Colloquialism are the next issues not to be neglected for preaching Gospel in this era.

One more important fact to check is which group of people followed and supported KJV, which group of people claimed and supported the Modern Versions. How was the faith of them ? These may not be easy to discern quickly, but should be kept in mind to check in the future when it is available to learn about the past history surrounding Bible Translation and Bible Prohibition.

 

Good luck in your studies.

I remember your saying that you want to go into evangelism? If so, just keep in mind that if you preach from the KJV, we are in an increasingly biblically illiterate (just plain illiterate, for that matter) culture, and that you'll probably have explain the texts a bit more than your forefathers in ministry had to do.

Having said that, you'll do fine w/using KJV...if God leads you there, go for it!

 

I hope you are wise enough to see the fallacies suggested here.

First, if you want to really know the differences then study them in faith side by side. Don't study them in doubt anticipating differences but in faith looking for agreement. Note to yourself if there are any doctrines or teachings that have truly and genuinely been changed. Then, rather than making the unsupported assumption that the KJV is correct, apply an honest study for the reasons behind any difference that bothers you.

Second, avoid guilt by association as an acid test. If you are honest, you will find just as many if not more cults using or founded upon the KJV as any other. The Mormons use it. The JW's started out using it... just to name a couple of destructive cults associated with the KJV in the exact same way some would have you associate MV's to false teachers.

The truth is most important... and presumption is quite often the enemy of truth.

 

First of all there is VERY little difference between the two Old Testament Hebrew texts. This is really a non-issue.

Second, the TR although mostly derived from the Majority text was also derived from a mixture of manuscripts which included the Latin Vulgate.

The later TR was actually a reverse engineered document based on the English KJV converted back into Greek.

If you are looking for a Bible that strictly uses the Majority or Byzantine texts, there are translations that do. There was a thread on this just a while back, telling at least one translation which is based on the Byzantine Texts and NOT the Textus Receptus.

 

What exactly is the "Minority Text"?

Do you know how many differences there are between the Ben Chayyim Masoretic Text and the Ben Asher Text?

If the Septuagint was good enough for Jesus, then?

Let's again clarify that the TR is related to the Majority Text, but is a mixture of texts including the Catholic Latin Vulgate.

One final thing, I certainly hope you are not questioning anybody's faith due to the Bible Translation they use?

 

1.Minority Texts:
One may identify between Manuscripts and Texts, but let me call the ancient manuscripts and texts together as texts.
Depending on the classification, there may be varying numbers between 2 groups, because some texts state the readings of Majority on some verses then Minority readings on other verses.
However if you read any of the Majority Texts like Hodges and Farstad, you can find that the identification between Majority and Minority is not difficult at all, and you can compare on the controversial issues.
Some people say that there are about 5,321 texts belonging to Majority Texts while 45 texts belong to Minority Texts which include B (Vatican Text) and Aleph(Sinaiticus), A (Alexandrinus), C (Codex Ephraemi).
But Minority Texts differ each other while Majority are very much united except minor orthographical differences.

For example, Mark 16:9-20 is not found in Vatican Text and Sinaiticus, among 620 texts for Gospel Mark. 615 texts are Majority Texts, and they have those verses. Codex Alexandrinus and Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus have it, even though they are classified as belonging to Minority Texts. Many MV's mention these verses in bracket, which makes the readers have doubt about the credibility of it.
Another example is Tim 3:16
I don't have the exact number of texts which have 1 Tim, but guess roughly about 500. Among them only 3-5 texts like Aleph, A, C state " He appeared in flesh" while all the other texts state " God appeared in flesh" where the deity of Jesus is very clear.

B (Vatican Text) doesn't have the entire 1 Timothy at all.

Another example:
John 8:1-11 Story about the woman caught in adultery:
Minority Texts including B (Vatican), A, omit the whole story. More than 500 texts which belong to Majority Texts have it.

Modern Versions follow mostly A, B, Aleph (Sinaiticus), but they all miss this story. Then why don't they stick to those texts by omitting the story? If you read the preface of the book Majority Texts by Farstad, you will find why it should be included in the genuine Bible.

When I compared the many verses between the texts, apparently I could find what are the majority and what are the minority. Someone on this board suggested another book on Majority provides better overview on the comparison.

2. Ben Asher/ Ben Chayyim
I mentioned in other thread about them, saying that I have not investigated very much but understand that Kittel changed the Ben Chayyim MT on 20,000-30,000 spots since 1906 and 1912, and later on his successors changed the basis from Ben Chayyim to Ben Asher and published it in 1937, which eventually became BHS.( Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia)
I understand many MV's are based on BHS and there must be significant difference. When I mentioned the difference between KJV and others, mainly I referred to NT first. As I translate OT, repeatedly I notice the differences between KJV and other versions but have not checked with BHS and not organized them yet.

3.Jesus used Hebrew Bible as we can see in Mt 5:18, MT 23:35, Lk 24:44. Also he spoke to Paul in Hebrew as in Acts 26:14.
Septuagint differs from MT in many verses. For example, Psalm 145 has only 10 verses while MT has 21 verses. Jeremiah of LXX is shorter than that of MT by about 13%.


4. Let's again clarify that the TR is related to the Majority Text, but is a mixture of texts including the Catholic Latin Vulgate .

Yes, TR is a representative of Majority Texts.
2 Texts which were mainly used by Erasmus belong to Majority Texts. Erasmus referred to the Latin Bibles used by Waldenese and other true believers. If he referred to Catholic Vulgate, why is it so different from Catholic Vulgate now?

5. One final thing, I certainly hope you are not questioning anybody's faith due to the Bible Translation they use

No! I was saved while I was reading a Bible like any modern version. I realized King James Version is accurate after spending many years since I was saved. Therefore I don't have such classification. But I believe if any one carefully examine the texts and bible situation spending enough time, then the person will find which version and which texts are more accurate and preserved by God.
Better choice of the Bible will enhance the reader's faith.


I think there are many misunderstandings on this issue even among the True Believers, even on this Board, which may be clarified if we have some more sincere discussions.

 

I don't use TR by Joseph Scrivener, but refer to Erasmus and Stephanus which were edited 1516-1524 and 1550, far before KJV was published in 1611.

 

Don't forget about the NKJV.

I would recommend the KJV, NASB (1995), and the NKJV. Each of these accurate faithful translations will help you grow as a child of God.

Remember that the KJV has words that have changed meanings since 1611. The same word in 1611 meant something different than it does today. Peculiar in 1611 meant owned. So using the NKJV and NASB will help you grow.

Don’t believe the fairy tales coming from the KJVO Camp. The KJV is a fine translation but it is a little dated. A student of the KJV should know what some words meant in 1611 in order to grasp the full meaning of the verse in question. English changes therefore a KJV student must be on top of the changes. Using the KJV just requires a little more digging sometimes. The KJV is a great translation.

Some verses the KJV translates better than the NASB, some verses the NASB translates better than the KJV, and sometimes the NKJV is better than the above. All are God’s perfect Word and all teach the same things. Don’t take my word for it study these bibles for yourself.

I would suggest buying a reprint of the 1611 KJV and read the translators marginal notes and introduction.

In Christ,

David

 

Peculiar in 1611 did not mean owned, it meant purchased. Owned and purchased are two entirely different terms. Purchased implies there was a price that had to be paid. Owned only implies that someone owns something. Big difference.

peripoihsiV peripoiesis per-ee-poy'-ay-sis

from 4046; acquisition (the act or the thing); by extension, preservation:--obtain(-ing), peculiar, purchased, possession, saving.