King James Version Bible vs. Modern english bible

[Logos1560]

King James had nothing to do with altering any translation.

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.

 

[rsr]

Yes, I have read many of the defenses of Psalms 12:6-7. Have you bothered to read any of the disagreeing critiques? My opinion is that its use as a defense of the KJV is highly improbable on linguistic grounds, but not entirely impossible. Logic is wholly against it; why would the Psalmist stick a defense of the KJV into the text? Have all other languages been without a Bible purified seven times? God forbid.

And the whole "purified seven times" in relation to the English Bible is, well, an entirely subjective call. Vance rejects Wycliffe's Bible on the grounds that it was translated from the Vulgate. That's true, but it was the only English Bible available and it influenced not only the Lollards but also, through Wycliffe, the Hussites, who attempted to battle Rome centuries before the Reformation.

Faulty though it may have been, it was a powerful tool to those who attempted to counter the the prevailing power of the Latin Rite folks.

Besides, many of those who hold to "refined seven times" count Wycliffe's translation as the first in the "pure" line of English Bibles because, well, it was the first. Think of that: Until Wycliffe there as NO translation of the entire Bible into a language that all but the most educated could understand. Even the "meanest" translation, according to the KJV translators, was the word of God.

The TR reference is important because the KJV departs from the TR. On what basis did the translators do this? Were they relying on manuscripts only they had seen? Or did they introduce readings from Bibles not included in the "holy six" that Vance lists? Surely the Douay cannot have contributed to the perfect KJV since it's not included in Vance's list. So it seems that the KJV translators did have access to manuscripts that no one else has seen or they had special revelation. Take your pick.

As for the the AV and TR matching, I can only sigh. Of course the KJV and Scrivener's TR agree (most of the time, though there are some cases they don't) because Scrivener attempted to recreate the Greek FROM THE KJV TRANSLATION when he could find the Greek they appeared to rely upon. Sometimes he couldn't and departed from the KJV.

 

[agedman]

The ESV does not come from the same texts as the AV (see http://www.cspmt.org/pdf/resources/NT Text Chart.pdf). The AV is literarily better than the ESV and does a better job of translation.
I will admit, however, that the ESV is better than such things as the NIV and NLT.

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.

 

[Yeshua1]

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!

 

[Ben Labelle]

Can you provide documentation for your claim?

Marion Simms maintained that "the Great Bible, Bishops' Bible, and KJV, all Episcopal in origin, gave a more favorable place to the Apocrypha than any other [Protestant English] Bibles" (Bible from the Beginning, p. 198). Some 1599 editions of the Geneva Bible were said to have been bound without the Apocrypha so why didn't the KJV translators follow its example? Probably aimed at the Geneva Bible, Archbishop Abbot, one of the KJV translators, issued in 1615 an order forbidding the sale of Bibles without the Apocrypha (Simms, Bible from the Beginning, p. 198). KJV-only advocate Jack Moorman also acknowledged that Abbot "in 1615 forbade anyone to issue a Bible without the Apocrypha on pain of one year's imprisonment" (Forever Settled, p. 183).

Does this indicate that the official position of the "superior" KJV translators was that the Apocrypha should be published with the Bible? Is there any evidence that any of the other KJV translators objected to Abbot’s order? If George Abbot, who at least leaned toward or tolerated Puritan views, had such a high regard for the Apocrypha, the many KJV translators with High Church views would have had even more regard for it. If that order did not represent Archbishop Abbot’s actual view, King James I perhaps ordered or instructed him to issue it as the Church of England‘s official position that the KJV translators would have had to accept.

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.

 

[Ben Labelle]

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.

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

 

[Saved-By-Grace]

A KING JAMES VERSION SERMON:

- Hebrews 4:12 (KJV)
- Psalm 12:6-7 (KJV)

Notice the word "preserve", meaning God's word is already present in our times.

- Galatians 1:6-7 (of 1:1-12) (KJV)

Notice "of Christ", meaning sadly there are trying Christians attracted by the overwhelming affection of Christ, only to be misled by a Gospel that is not "of Christ"

- 2 Corinthians 11:3-4 (KJV)

Scriptural changes differing in meaning broadly spread through the many so called, "modern English Bible Translations" published since the King James Version Bible (KJV) or its birth in 1611 as the Authorized Version (AV).

Here is our History:
The Authorized Version: Translated from the Textus Receptus and finished in 1611; Protestant Reformation for Christian believers with beliefs protestant to the Roman Catholic Church; Later revised as the King James Version Bible.

The MOST respected Bible, standing out as a strong spiritual asset.
The one and only true word of God (in the English Language).
The Holy Bible.

- Proverbs 30:5-6 (KJV)

Pre 1611 (Old Testament):
Was known to be in the Hebrew Language.

Pre 1611 (New Testament):
Before year 1611, The New Testament was present on earth in the Greek language; in texts known as the Textus Receptus, Yet, not yet translated into the English Language.
...............................................................
Pre 1611 English Bible translations (To solve confusion):
These books were not known to be as spiritually profitable, but are very evident that the puritan reformer group in their day were not happy with Catholicism and the Roman Catholic Church, desperate and determined for liberty in faith.

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!

 

[Yeshua1]

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

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

 

[Yeshua1]

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!

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?

 

[Saved-By-Grace]

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

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.

 

[Yeshua1]

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!

 

[rsr]

Those are not from the translators, BTW.

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

Gipp is wrong about this (and is not a very reliable source in general).

The list is from a footnote in A.W. McClure's The Translators Revived (1853). He does not attribute it to the translators; he would surely have provided a source if it indeed had come from the translators. I assume Gipp just misunderstood or was copying from a source that made the claim.

Unfortunately, this has been repeated so often it is often believed without seeking the original source.

 

[Saved-By-Grace]

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

 

[Ben Labelle]

Those are not from the translators, BTW.


Gipp is wrong about this (and is not a very reliable source in general).

The list is from a footnote in A.W. McClure's The Translators Revived (1853). He does not attribute it to the translators; he would surely have provided a source if it indeed had come from the translators. I assume Gipp just misunderstood or was copying from from a source that made the claim.

Unfortunately, this has been repeated so often it is often believed without seeking the original source.

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.

 

[Saved-By-Grace]

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

 

[Yeshua1]

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 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!

 

[Saved-By-Grace]

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?

 

[rsr]

Ben: I don't doubt the statements in your most recent post.

What I was referring to was the assertion from Dr. Gipp, which apparently is not true but has been repeated innumerable times, apparently without checking on its authenticity. (I will assume he copied from another source or perhaps misread McClure.) The fact is that the list was not from the translators and should not he attributed to them. People who pretend to be experts should at least get their sources right.

(I do not, however, maintain that McClure was the original source of the list, but only that his list is repeated verbatim in Gipp's work, which makes it traceable. I would not be surprised if the list were propounded earlier by someone else.)

 

[ChrisTheSaved]

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.

 

[Logos1560]

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

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

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.