King James Version Bible vs. Modern english bible

[rlvaughn]

These lists, BTW, seem to have no problem with the NKJV's rendering of Revelation, where the TR departs from both the Majority Text and the Critical Text.

Looking back over your comment and wondering just what you meant by this? It could seem like you're saying that NKJV used MT/CT in Revelation, but in context that doesn't fit. Maybe just that they should have found differences if the objection is true? So I'd ask for further explanation. Thanks.

My understanding is that the translators used the TR text as their main source, but did also indicate in footnotes/margins where the MT/CT also had a viable option

It seems that both proponents and critics agree on this -- and the use of CT in the marginal renderings is another objection that many have to the NKJV. Previously you had asked:

I am still looking to see the evidence from the KJVO people as to why they consider the NKJV to not be the real updated Kjv for us today!

To which I answered that a chief objection is that a number of times the NKJV prefers the Critical Text readings over the Received Text. rsr and Logos1560 both indicated that the objectors have not proven this to be the case. First, whether they have proven it to be the case or not does not negate the fact that it is an objection that people have. Second, though, after a little investigation, I believe that rsr and Logos1560 are right about the correctness of the objection itself -- that is, there are not a number of times that the NKJV prefers the Critical Text readings over the Received Text. I said I don't have time for continuing to look up of verses in the NKJV, but I did make a little time last night to look at one of the online lists of objections to NKJV renderings. Here is a brief report of what I found (but understand, what I looked at was very limited).

As I looked through the comparison list most all of the KJV/NKJV verses listed struck me as probably only translational differences (e.g., "too superstitious" or "very religious" in Acts 17:22). So I didn't look any further at those. There were two or three that looked like they might be textual (the list didn't have Rev. 6:11, which I remarked on above). But when I looked them up there seemed to be no substantial differences in the underlying text to account for the difference in the English reading, so these again seemed to be differences in translation. Here is an example from Hebrews 2:16:

• For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham. (KJV)
• For indeed He does not give aid to angels, but He does give aid to the seed of Abraham. (NKJV)
• For surely it is not angels he helps, but Abraham’s descendants. (NIV)
• ου γαρ δηπου αγγελων επιλαμβανεται αλλα σπερματος αβρααμ επιλαμβανεται (TR1550)
• οὐ γὰρ δήπου ἀγγέλων ἐπιλαμβάνεται, ἀλλὰ σπέρματος Ἀβραὰμ ἐπιλαμβάνεται. (SBLGNT)
• ου γαρ δηπου αγγελων επιλαμβανεται αλλα σπερματος αβρααμ επιλαμβανεται (WHNT)
• ου γαρ δηπου αγγελων επιλαμβανεται αλλα σπερματος αβρααμ επιλαμβανεται (TR1894)
• οὐ γὰρ δήπου ἀγγέλων ἐπιλαμβάνεται ἀλλὰ σπέρματος Ἀβραὰμ ἐπιλαμβάνεται. (NA28)

(I used the Greek versions available at Bible Gateway + NA28 online to make it easy on myself). Unless I am mistaken, the only differences are that some leave off the accent marks and one capitalizes Abraham. So no textual difference accounts for the differences in the KJV and NKJV translation -- even though the NKJV's translation appears closer in wording and meaning to other modern translations than to the KJV. One could argue that the translators were influenced by other translations of Hebrew 2:16, but at least in this case there is no substantial difference between TR and CT, in my opinion (just a capital letter).

 

[rsr]

Looking back over your comment and wondering just what you meant by this? It could seem like you're saying that NKJV used MT/CT in Revelation, but in context that doesn't fit. Maybe just that they should have found differences if the objection is true? So I'd ask for further explanation. Thanks.I

I apologize for not explaining it better. What I meant was that if the NKJV departed from the underlying KJV text it would surely show up in Revelation, where there are renderings that are unique to the KJV and are not reflected in either the CT or the MT.

 

[Saved-By-Grace]

Metzger was a godly Christian scholar who doesn't deserve abuse by a plebeian.

Dr. Wallace has plenty of expertise of his own. He's not a little child following anyone.

“The Old Testament may be described as the literary expression of the religious life of ancient Israel. ... The Israelites were more history-conscious than any other people in the ancient world. Probably as early as the time of David and Solomon, out of a matrix of myth, legend, and history, there had appeared the earliest written form of the story of the saving acts of God from Creation to the conquest of the Promised Land, an account which later in modified form became a part of Scripture. But it was to be a long time before the idea of Scripture arose and the Old Testament took its present form. ... The process by which the Jews became ‘the people of the Book’ was gradual, and the development is shrouded in the mists of history and tradition. ... The date of the final compilation of the Pentateuch or Law, which was the first corpus or larger body of literature that came to be regarded by the Jews as authoritative Scripture, is uncertain, although some have conservatively dated it at the time of the Exile in the sixth century. ... Before the adoption of the Pentateuch as the Law of Moses, there had been compiled and edited in the spirit and diction of the Deuteronomic ‘school’ the group of books consisting of Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings, in much their present form. ... Thus the Pentateuch took shape over a long period of time” (Introduction to the Old Testament, New Oxford Annotated Bible).

Genesis: “Nearly all modern scholars agree that, like the other books of the Pentateuch, [Genesis] is a composite of several sources, embodying traditions that go back in some cases to Moses” (Metzger’s Introduction to Genesis, Reader’s Digest Condensed Bible).

Exodus: “As with Genesis, several strands of literary tradition, some very ancient, some as late as the sixth century B.C., were combined in the makeup of the books” (Metzger’s Introduction to Exodus, Reader’s Digest Condensed Bible).

Deuteronomy: “It’s compilation is generally assigned to the seventh century B.C., though it rests upon much older tradition, some of it from Moses’ time” (Metzger’s Introduction to Deuteronomy, Reader’s Digest Condensed Bible).

 

[Logos1560]

Possible or likely textual differences between the 1560 Geneva Bible and the KJV in the gospel of Luke

Luke 1:28

thou that art freely beloved [1560 Geneva Bible] [Beza] (see Backus, Reformed Roots of the English New Testament, pp. 79, 91)

thou that art highly favoured [1611 KJV] [Erasmus]

Luke 6:16

Judas [1560 Geneva Bible] [Stephanus]

And Judas [1611 KJV]

Luke 7:28

then John [1560 Geneva Bible]

than John the Baptist [1611 KJV]

Luke 8:14

bring forth no fruit [1560 Geneva Bible] [Erasmus] (see Backus, pp. 83-84)

bring no fruit to perfection [1611 KJV] [Beza]

Luke 8:29

was carried [1560 Geneva Bible] [Erasmus & Latin Vulgate] (see Backus, p. 84)

was driven [1611 KJV] [Beza]

Luke 9:22

and the third day rise again [1560 Geneva Bible] [Vulgate]

and be raised the third day [1611 KJV] [Beza]

Luke 10:19

nothing shall hurt you [1560 Geneva Bible]

nothing shall by any means hurt you [1611 KJV]

Luke 10:22 "Then he turned to his disciples" [these words in 1560 Geneva Bible from an edition of Stephanus are not in 1611 KJV's text] [see 1611 marginal note] (see also Backus, pp. 85-86)

Did the makers of the KJV remove words from the text of a pre-1611 English Bible and put them in a marginal note?

Luke 11:3

for the day [1560 Geneva Bible] [Beza] (see Backus, p. 86)

day by day [1611 KJV] [Erasmus] [see 1611 marginal note]

Luke 12:56

the face of the earth, and of the sky [1560 Geneva Bible] [Stephanus]

the face of the sky and of the earth [1611 KJV] [Complutensian]

Luke 15:13

So not long after [1560 Geneva Bible]

And not many days after [1611 KJV] [Latin—non post multos dies]

[Daniell maintained that the “KJV followed the Latin” (Bible in English, p. 363)]

Luke 15:26

one of his servants [1560 Geneva Bible] [Stephanus]

one of the servants [1611 KJV] [Beza]

Luke 17:36 [this verse in the KJV is not in the 1560 Geneva Bible and some other pre-1611 English Bibles]
The 1560 Geneva Bible has a verse 36 but it is what is verse 37 in the KJV. [see 1611 marginal note] (see also Backus, p. 88)

Luke 20:32

And last of all, the woman died also [1560 Geneva Bible]

Last of all the woman died also [1611 KJV]

 

[rsr]

“The Old Testament may be described as the literary expression of the religious life of ancient Israel. ... The Israelites were more history-conscious than any other people in the ancient world.

While the details may perhaps be wrong in places, I find it this unexceptionable. Josiah recovered the "lost books" of the law. In fact, they may have never existed before. You are attempting to impose upon the Hebrew scriptures a model that is modern and not something the ancients would recognize. You modernist, you.

 

[Saved-By-Grace]

While the details may perhaps be wrong in places, I find it this unexceptionable. Josiah recovered the "lost books" of the law. In fact, they may have never existed before. You are attempting to impose upon the Hebrew scriptures a model that is modern and not something the ancients would recognize. You modernist, you.

BRUCE METZGER believed Moses did not write the Pentateuch, Deuteronomy was not written until 700 years before Christ, the Old Testament is a mixture of “myth, legend, and history,” the record of the worldwide flood of Noah’s day is exaggerated, the book of Job is a folktale, the miracle accounts about Elijah and Elisha contain “legendary elements,” Isaiah was written by Isaiah plus two or three unknown men who wrote centuries later, the record of Jonah is a “legend,” Daniel does not contain supernatural prophecy, Paul did not write the Pastoral Epistles, Peter did not write 2 Peter, etc. All of these unbelieving lies can be found in the notes to the Reader’s Digest Condensed Bible, which were written by Metzger, and in the New Oxford Annotated Bible, of which Metzger is a co-editor.

Jesus Christ, the HIGHEST Authority on the Holy Bible, as God Incarnate, said that Moses was the ONLY author of the Pentateuch (Luke 24:44). Again, Jesus mentions that Isaiah the Prophet, as THE singular author of the Book that bears his name in the Old Testament.

Instead of supporting LIBERALS who attach the Infallibility, Inerrancy and Authority of the Holy Bible, spend more time prayfully reading the Bible yourself, and get your facts right! Daniel Wallace's opposition to 1 John 5:7, shows that he is a mere amateur when it comes to textual matters! I challenge him or anyone else to disprove my own research on this wonderful passage on the Holy Trinity, http://www.trinitystudies.org/Trinity/1jn5.6-10.pdf

 

[Rippon]

Some snips from Daniel Wallace's memoriam of Dr. Metzger.

"He was a conservative light at Princeton."

"Bruce Metzger was a scholar's scholar, a gentleman's gentleman, and a humble servant of Jesus Christ."

"Many considered him the finest N.T. textual critic of the 20th century."

"To be sure, there are things over which many Christians will disagree with him. But on the essentials of the faith, it's hard to take issue with him. He was adamant about the deity of Christ and his bodily resurrection."

 

[robycop3]

Once all the smoke clears from all the arguments in this thread, several indisputable FACTS remain in force:

1.) There's NO SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT for the KJVO myth in the KJV itself, nor in any of its sources. And NO KJVO can show us any AUTHORITY FROM GOD to believe the KJVO doctrine.

2.) The KJVO myth is entirely MAN-MADE. The origin for the current version of it is traced back to 7TH DAY ADVENTIST official Dr. Ben Wilkinson's 1930 book, Our Authorized Bible Vindicated, which he wrote in response to a squabble within his cult, not to start a new doctrine. The false "Psalm 12:5-7 thingie" is drawn from that book, although Dr. W didn't originate it.

As almost all Baptists, including myself, are Sola Scriptura, no Baptist should believe the KJVO myth, as it's as non-Scriptural as are the other false "isms" Satan tries to inject into Christianity.

 

[Saved-By-Grace]

One of the strongest texts in the New Testament, for the Deity of the Lord Jesus Christ, is 1 Corinthians 10:9;

"We must not put Christ to the test, as some of them did and were destroyed by serpents"

Here the Apostle Paul was referring to the incident in the Old Testament Book of Numbers, 21:5-6, where we read;

"And the people spoke against God and against Moses, “Why have you brought us up out of Egypt to die in the wilderness? For there is no food and no water, and we loathe this worthless food.” Then the LORD sent fiery serpents among the people, and they bit the people, so that many people of Israel died."

It should be noted, that the Hebrew word used here for "LORD", is "YHWH", which has the root meaning, "eternal, self-existing", which can only be used for Almighty God, and Paul, writing under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, saw in this the Lord Jesus Christ.

This is what the Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, edited by Metzger, and published by the LIBERAL United Bible Society, says on 1 Corinthians 10:9;

"Χριστόν {B}
The reading that best explains the origin of the others is Χριστόν, attested by the oldest Greek manuscript (P46) as well as by a wide diversity of early patristic and versional witnesses (Irenaeus in Gaul, Ephraem in Edessa, Clement in Alexandria, Origen in Palestine, as well as by the Old Latin, the Vulgate, Syriac, Sahidic and Bohairic). The difficulty of explaining how the ancient Israelites in the wilderness could have tempted Christ prompted some copyists to substitute either the ambiguous κύριον or the unobjectionable θεόν. Paul’s reference to Christ here is analogous to that in ver. 4."

I have done research into this myself, and can say without any doubt, that "Christ" is the strongest and best attested to by the ancient Greek manuscripts, versions and Church fathers. And, YET, Metzger does not give this an "A" rating, but a "B", which shows there is some "doubt" as to it! Read the comments above and you will see the nonsense about a "difficulty" about the pre-Incarnate Jesus Christ being "tempted" in the Old Testament. The reading "Christ" was corrupted to "Lord", in some modern versions, which would not refer to Jesus Christ. Even the Greek New Testament published by the Jehovah's Witnesses, the Emphatic Diaglott, in the Greek text, has "Χριστόν". In their Kingdom Interlinear of 1969, they adopt the reading "κύριον" in the Greek text, but interestingly in the English text in the right column, they read, "Jehovah". This is the same in their 1985 edition. Here the Jehovah's Witnesses, admit that Jesus Christ is JEHOVAH. And yet the UBS under Metzger could not be certain about this fact!

 

[Saved-By-Grace]

Once all the smoke clears from all the arguments in this thread, several indisputable FACTS remain in force:

1.) There's NO SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT for the KJVO myth in the KJV itself, nor in any of its sources. And NO KJVO can show us any AUTHORITY FROM GOD to believe the KJVO doctrine.

2.) The KJVO myth is entirely MAN-MADE. The origin for the current version of it is traced back to 7TH DAY ADVENTIST official Dr. Ben Wilkinson's 1930 book, Our Authorized Bible Vindicated, which he wrote in response to a squabble within his cult, not to start a new doctrine. The false "Psalm 12:5-7 thingie" is drawn from that book, although Dr. W didn't originate it.

As almost all Baptists, including myself, are Sola Scriptura, no Baptist should believe the KJVO myth, as it's as non-Scriptural as are the other false "isms" Satan tries to inject into Christianity.

While I would agree with what you say, it has to be admitted, as far as translations of the Holy Bible go, the KJV is by far the best ever produced, and I believe very much blessed by the Lord in its faithfulness to His Word. 1 Timothy 3:16, for the clearest single verse for the Deity of the Lord Jesus Christ; and 1 John 5:7, for the clearest single verse on the Holy Trinity, were, in my opinion preserved in the KJV by the Lord, as they both are the original.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

BRUCE METZGER believed Moses did not write the Pentateuch, Deuteronomy was not written until 700 years before Christ, the Old Testament is a mixture of “myth, legend, and history,” the record of the worldwide flood of Noah’s day is exaggerated, the book of Job is a folktale, the miracle accounts about Elijah and Elisha contain “legendary elements,” Isaiah was written by Isaiah plus two or three unknown men who wrote centuries later, the record of Jonah is a “legend,” Daniel does not contain supernatural prophecy, Paul did not write the Pastoral Epistles, Peter did not write 2 Peter, etc. All of these unbelieving lies can be found in the notes to the Reader’s Digest Condensed Bible, which were written by Metzger, and in the New Oxford Annotated Bible, of which Metzger is a co-editor.

But on the essentials of the faith, it's hard to take issue with him

It seems to me that both these statements cannot be true.

 

[Saved-By-Grace]

It seems to me that both these statements cannot be true.

Just found this online, looks helpful on Metzger, http://gracembc.org/images/BM_METZGER.pdf

 

[Logos1560]

While I would agree with what you say, it has to be admitted, as far as translations of the Holy Bible go, the KJV is by far the best ever produced, and I believe very much blessed by the Lord in its faithfulness to His Word.

Why does something have to be admitted when it has not been proven to be true?
Do you merely assume that opinion to be true?

I am open to the possibility that the KJV could be the best translation, but I have not seen sound evidence that proves that it is.

When compared to the same preserved Scriptures in the original languages, another English translation (sometimes a pre-1611 one or a post-1611 one) is more accurate than the KJV in some verses. There are many varying editions of the KJV so is there a certain edition that you claim is the best one? The 1611 edition of the KJV had some errors that would be corrected in later editions. The 1769 Oxford edition of the KJV corrected some errors, but it introduced another new set of errors, one of which remained in most Oxford and Cambridge editions for over 100 years.

A number of believers may consider another English Bible translation to be better overall than the KJV is.

 

[Saved-By-Grace]

Why does something have to be admitted when it has not been proven to be true?
Do you merely assume that opinion to be true?

I am open to the possibility that the KJV could be the best translation, but I have not seen sound evidence that proves that it is.

When compared to the same preserved Scriptures in the original languages, another English translation (sometimes a pre-1611 one or a post-1611 one) is more accurate than the KJV in some verses. There are many varying editions of the KJV so is there a certain edition that you claim is the best one? The 1611 edition of the KJV had some errors that would be corrected in later editions. The 1769 Oxford edition of the KJV corrected some errors, but it introduced another new set of errors, one of which remained in most Oxford and Cambridge editions for over 100 years.

A number of believers may consider another English Bible translation to be better overall than the KJV is.

have you ever considered the original Hebrew and Greek Bibles? The KJV is only a translation, and a very good, God blessed one, but, there are some modern ones that are also very good, and some of the textual differences that are not in the KJV, like the very strong reading for John 1:18, "θεὸν οὐδεὶς ἑώρακεν πώποτε μονογενὴς θεὸς ὁ ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρὸς ἐκεῖνος ἐξηγήσατο", is the correct one, which the older and stronger textual evidence

μονογενὴς θεὸς] p66 ‭à* B C* L pc syrp syrh(mg) geo2 Diatessarona ValentiniansAccording to Irenaeus ValentiniansAccording to Clement Ptolemy Heracleon Origengr(2/4) AriusAccording to Epiphanius Apostolic Constitutions Didymus Ps-Ignatius SynesiusAccording to Epiphanius Cyril1/4 WH NRtext Nv NM
ὁ μονογενὴς θεὸς] p75 ‭à2 33 pc copbo TheodotusAccording to Clement(1/2) Clement2/3 Origengr(2/4) Eusebius3/7 Serapion1/2 Basil1/2 Gregory-Nyssa Epiphanius Cyril3/4

 

[Yeshua1]

That is a fascinating fact.

Both the Geneva and Kjv came from same textual basis though/tree so to speak....

 

[Yeshua1]

have you ever considered the original Hebrew and Greek Bibles? The KJV is only a translation, and a very good, God blessed one, but, there are some modern ones that are also very good, and some of the textual differences that are not in the KJV, like the very strong reading for John 1:18, "θεὸν οὐδεὶς ἑώρακεν πώποτε μονογενὴς θεὸς ὁ ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρὸς ἐκεῖνος ἐξηγήσατο", is the correct one, which the older and stronger textual evidence

μονογενὴς θεὸς] p66 ‭à* B C* L pc syrp syrh(mg) geo2 Diatessarona ValentiniansAccording to Irenaeus ValentiniansAccording to Clement Ptolemy Heracleon Origengr(2/4) AriusAccording to Epiphanius Apostolic Constitutions Didymus Ps-Ignatius SynesiusAccording to Epiphanius Cyril1/4 WH NRtext Nv NM
ὁ μονογενὴς θεὸς] p75 ‭à2 33 pc copbo TheodotusAccording to Clement(1/2) Clement2/3 Origengr(2/4) Eusebius3/7 Serapion1/2 Basil1/2 Gregory-Nyssa Epiphanius Cyril3/4

I always have held to one can be a KJVP and TRP, but not a TR or a KJVO!

 

[Yeshua1]

You might be right in regards to thisspecific passage, but the really good news is that there are no major doctrines disputed in either the Kjv, or good modern translations.

 

[Saved-By-Grace]

I always have held to one can be a KJVP and TRP, but not a TR or a KJVO!

indeed, but some are too blinded by fantasy to listen!

 

[Saved-By-Grace]

You might be right in regards to thisspecific passage, but the really good news is that there are no major doctrines disputed in either the Kjv, or good modern translations.

but, it is not only the one passage, there are others as well. How many people know that John 3:6 was the clearest for the Deity of the Holy Spirit? It read in my opinion, in the original,

"quod in carne natum est, caro est; quia ex carne natum est. et quod de Spiritu natum est, spirits est; quia Deus Spiritus est, et de Deo natus est".

In plain old English,

"that which is born in the flesh, is flesh; because of flesh he is born. And that which born of the Spirit, is spirit; because the Spirit is God, and he is born of God"

Or, there was another verse other than 1 John 5:7 for the Holy Trinity, which is 1 Corinthians 8:6;

After Paul wrote, "But unto us, one God the father, of Whom all things, and we for Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by Whom all things, and we by him", he went to to say, "και εv Πvευμα Αγιov εvτα παvτα και μεις εv αυτos", that is,
"and one Holy Spirit, in Whom all things, and we in Him"

 

[Yeshua1]

but, it is not only the one passage, there are others as well. How many people know that John 3:16 was the clearest for the Deity of the Holy Spirit? It read in my opinion, in the original,

"quod in carne natum est, caro est; quia ex carne natum est. et quod de Spiritu natum est, spirits est; quia Deus Spiritus est, et de Deo natus est".

In plain old English,

"that which is born in the flesh, is flesh; because of flesh he is born. And that which born of the Spirit, is spirit; because the Spirit is God, and he is born of God"

Or, there was another verse other than 1 John 5:7 for the Holy Trinity, which is 1 Corinthians 8:6;

After Paul wrote, "But unto us, one God the father, of Whom all things, and we for Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by Whom all things, and we by him", he went to to say, "και εv Πvευμα Αγιov εvτα παvτα και μεις εv αυτos", that is,
"and one Holy Spirit, in Whom all things, and we in Him"


Where do modern versions such as the Nasb/Nkjv though deny the Trinity, or any other major doctrines of the faith?