KJV and the modern versions

[Askjo]

I don't think they did. They have "Jesus" in place of the KJVs "he" 207 times, "Jesus" in place of the KJV's "him" 90 times, "Jesus" in place of the KJV's "his" 3 times, "Jesus and his disciples" over the KJV's "they" 3 times, "Jesus" in place of the KJV's "whom" once, replaces the KJV's "Lord" with either "Jesus" "Lord Jesus" or "Jesus Christ" three times, replaces the KJV's "this" or "this man" with "Jesus" twice, and translates "Jesus" in 6 verses where the KJV doesn't even use ANY word representing Jesus at all.
(from http://www.kjv-only.com/jesusnew.html)

So maybe the KJV writers didn't reference Jesus? Looks like the NIV has "Jesus" placed about 300 more often often than the KJV.

When God said, "Jesus", the Greek text said, "Jesus." The Bible translation said, "Jesus." WHO TOLD YOU to change Jesus to He? WHO TOLD MV TRANSLATORS to change the God-speaking to man's thoughts?

When God said, "He", the Greek text said, 'He". The Bible translation said, "He." WHO TOLD YOU to change "He" to Jesus? WHO TOLD MV TRANSLATORS to change the God-speaking to man's thoughts?

 

[EdSutton]

If someone decides to produce a "new Bible version", then they must also convince Christians that there is a NEED and a justifiable CAUSE for the new version. One of the deceitful excuses being used today for producing new versions is that the King James Bible has been revised several times since 1611, and that a new revision is needed once again. While spreading this piece of deceitful misinformation, the KJV critics hold their breath, hoping that no one will be intelligent enough to ask for specific details about these "revisions". The many revisions that have occurred since 1881 bear NO RESEMBLANCE to the various EDITIONS of the KJV prior to 1881.

There were only FOUR actual EDITIONS of the King James Bible produced after 1611: 1629, 1638, 1762, and 1769. These were not translations (like the new versions SINCE 1881), and they really weren't even "revisions".

The 1629 edition was simply an effort to correct printing errors, and two of the original King James translators assisted in the work.

The 1638 edition of the KJV also dealt with printing errors, especially words and clauses overlooked by the printers. About 72% of the textual corrections in the KJV were done by 1638, only 27 years after the first printing.

Please bear in mind the fact that printing was a very laborious task prior to 1800. Publishing a flawless work was almost impossible. Even today, with computers and advanced word processors, printing errors are still frequently made. Imagine what it was like in the 1600's!

Then, in 1762 and 1769, two final editions of the KJV were published. Both of these involved spelling changes, which became necessary as the English language became more stabilized and spelling rules were established.

There were no new translations, and there were really no new revisions published in 1629, 1638, 1762, or 1769. These were simply EDITIONS of the 1611 KJV, which corrected printing errors and spelling. Those who try to equate these editions with the modern translations are just being deceitful or stupid--or both. The many other so-called "revisions" of the KJV that occurred in 1613, 1616, 1617, and 1743 are nothing more than running changes and touch-up work at the printers. The REAL revisions and translations do not start appearing until 1881 (RV) and 1901 (ASV).
...you can simply state that you have a 1769 edition of the King James 1611 Authorized Version.
http://www.av1611.org/kjv/fight.html

Regardless, my question still holds. I suggest that there is a reason certain versions/editions are the ones consistently at the top. Those appear to generally be (currently) the NIV, KJV, and NKJV, with the NLT a strong fourth, according to some sites I just checked, and which I will list, below.

Interestingly enough, for one month, the "profit driven" copyrighted NIV, actually ranked #1 for sales units, but #2 in dollar volume, while, only last month, the 'non- copyrighted' KJV, published with only supposedly 'pure' ideals, according to some, and where no such 'greed for filthy lucre' is actually a factor, apparently, was #4 in volume sales, but #2 in dollars, while the version 'owned' by that money-grubbing outfit of Thomas Nelson, the NKJV, was #2 in units sold, but only #4 in bucks realized.

Uh- is something not exactly adding up, here? Incidentally, these are not my figures, at all, but those of the CBA, and I suggest they have no reason to be biased in presenting this data, in any manner.

http://homepage.mac.com/rmansfield/thislamp/files/20071126_december_2007_bible_sales_rankings.html

http://www.newepistles.com/2008/02/bible-sales-ranking-for-march.html

http://www.cbaonline.org/nm/documents/BSLs/Bible_Translations.pdf

It is interesting to note that some versions, that have been oft 'hyped', in various places, including the BB, are barely, if at all, even visible among the "Top 10", while some others that 'receive far less press' are hanging in there, including the NKJV and HCSB, to name a couple, and both of which are far more 'Baptistic' in nature, than are most.

Your or my preferences notwithstanding (and for now the umpteenth time, I am not a particular fan of the NIV), once again, I would suggest that God has something to do with this. Other versions, such as the RSV never came close to living up to 'hype' and expectations, for long, but the NIV has been at or near the top, along with the KJV, and almost from its appearance, and has stayed there for a quarter of a century, and actually attained this position, without any subtle (or not-so-subtle, as the case may be) help from 'government or an official state church.

There is no legitimacy to any argument for one version over the other, in this regard, for the only official advocate the NIV had, is and was Zondervan, and the Zondervan created entity, The IBS.

Ed

 

[Askjo]

And your proof would be? If you do not take his information, here might be some more for you:

http://www.kjvonly.org/doug/kutilek_notes_on_lucifer.htm
http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cach...JV&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=13&gl=us&client=firefox-a

Let's look at NIV in regard of "morning star."

Isa. 14:12 NIV
How you have fallen from heaven, O morning star, son of the dawn! You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations!

Rev 22:16 NIV
I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give you this testimony for the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, and the bright Morning Star.

Isa. 14:12 refers "morning star" to Lucifer. Rev. 22:16 refers "morning star" to Jesus. Therefore NIV said Satan is Jesus.

 

[DHK]

See a good bible dictionary:

unicorn--A reference to a type of Ox, in biblical times that when it turned sideways its horns were so symetrical that it looked like it had only one horn.

behemoth--hippopatamus

leviathan--crocodile

fiery flying serpent--
Fiery serpents in the bible are venomous snakes whose bite burned like fire.
There is a flying snake today which flattens itself out like a ribbon and glides from tree to tree or tree to ground like a flying squirrel.
A fiery flying serpent could have been a venomous version of the flying snake.

With all due respect, check a good dictionary.
The dictionary defines a unicorn as a one-horned horse with wings coming out of Greek mythology. In fact that is the only definition that it gives. Does the Bible use Greek mythology? I have had new believers ask me that question when reading through the OT.

a mythical animal generally depicted with the body and head of a horse, the hind legs of a stag, the tail of a lion, and a single horn in the middle of the forehead

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/unicorn

Your "Bible Dictionary" definition is there only to correct the mistake of the KJV.
Or, more precisely it is there to give the definition of the Hebrew word, when translated properly is a two-horned wild ox, with no resemblance to any kind of unicorn at all. There is no kind of rhinoceros indigenous to the land of Palestine at all, or anywhere near there. We know it is not that animal. Besides the word doesn't mean rhinoceros. It means wild ox. The misinterpretation of the word in the KJV was an obvious mistake. The Bible does not teach Greek mythology.

 

[EdSutton]

When God said, "Jesus", the Greek text said, "Jesus." The Bible translation said, "Jesus." WHO TOLD YOU to change Jesus to He? WHO TOLD MV TRANSLATORS to change the God-speaking to man's thoughts?

When God said, "He", the Greek text said, 'He". The Bible translation said, "He." WHO TOLD YOU to change "He" to Jesus? WHO TOLD MV TRANSLATORS to change the God-speaking to man's thoughts?

Probably, the same one who told the TR 'collectors' and editors to change the readings of the majority of the MT/Byzantine texts and also the CT/'Alexandrian' texts, as well, for some other reading, in the several places they did so, or other 'editorial' choices, that have been made in every version and/or translation ever done.

Or the one who told Beza to not use his own personal copy of a Greek manuscript, Codex D, in a version he supported, the Geneva Bible.

Why did John Wycliffe, use the Vulgate he had available, for the Wycliffe Bible? Simply because it was considered to be a better version, and a truer basis, than the notoriously known to be UN-reliable Greek and Hebrew texts he had at his disposal, even considering the fact that the Vulgate, in itself, was already a translation from the Biblical languages into Latin.

It's called 'Editing' and 'Textual Criticism.'.

Ed

 

[Askjo]

Probably, the same one who told the TR 'collectors' and editors to change the readings of the majority of the MT/Byzantine texts and also the CT/'Alexandrian' texts, as well, for some other reading, in the several places they did so, or other 'editorial' choices, that have been made in every version and/or translation ever done.

The phrase, “Down to minimum,” is the best one. The TR texts had it, and the CT texts did not have it.

 

[Ed Edwards]

Sin? Well, if NIV removed the names of our Lord Jesus Christ in the NT 200 times, did NIV reverence Jesus? Did these NIV translators reverence Him?

What is the 'names of our Lord Jesus Christ'?
​

This is a test. Here is some help:

1. Lord - a title meaning 'boss'
2. Christ - a title from a Greek word meaning 'Anointed by God'
3. Messiah - a title from a Hebrew word meaning 'Anointed by God'
4. Lamb of God - a title reminding us that Messiah Jesus is the perfect sacrifice
5. etc ...

A. Jesus - a later modern English name meaning 'Hashem Saves'
B. Iesus - an early modern English name meaning 'Hashem Saves'
C. Yeshua - an English adaptation of a Hebrew name meaning 'Hashem Saves'
D. etc ...

I suspect most people confuse the Titles of Jesus and the name of 'Jesus'

 

[Rippon]

The phrase, “Down to minimum,” is the best one. The TR texts had it, and the CT texts did not have it.

The TR has the minimum and the CT have more than the minimum?What are you talking about?Your posts are mystifying.

 

[EdSutton]

Let's look at NIV in regard of "morning star."

Isa. 14:12 NIV
How you have fallen from heaven, O morning star, son of the dawn! You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations!

Rev 22:16 NIV
I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give you this testimony for the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, and the bright Morning Star.

Isa. 14:12 refers "morning star" to Lucifer. Rev. 22:16 refers "morning star" to Jesus. Therefore NIV said Satan is Jesus.

This is a misrepresentation, at best, as Ed Edwards and annsni have already posted in this thread from posts 15-19, and as Ed Edwards has specifically posted, here:

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1300966&postcount=19

Ed

 

[Askjo]

The TR has the minimum and the CT have more than the minimum?What are you talking about?Your posts are mystifying.

The book of Mark in the NT is where TRs disagree 19 times; the Book of Mark in the NT is where CTs disagree 650+ times.

 

[Pastor Larry]

I was referring to the majority text:
The majority text, the manuscripts from which the textus receptus, the received text was taken. They are the majority of Greek manuscripts which agree with each other and have been accepted by bible believing christians down through the centuries. --Barry Burton from Let's Weigh The Evidence.

Barry Burton is a liar and a false teacher. I have his book in my study and it is filled with lies and attacks on God's words. This is one of them. The MajT is different than the TR. They don't "agree" with each other. They are different in numerous places. The MajT is a family of texts that show a number of differences from various manuscripts. The TR was edited several times each time making changes to it.

As you admitted even the KJV has had errors in it.

http://www.av1611.org/kjv/fight.html

This is part of your problem. You are learning from false teachers who attack the word of God without shame. There are many good resources out there who can help you combat the lies that you have bought into. In this day and age, there is no reason to continue in unbelief about the Bible.

 

[antiaging]

Barry Burton is a liar and a false teacher. I have his book in my study and it is filled with lies and attacks on God's words. This is one of them. The MajT is different than the TR. They don't "agree" with each other. They are different in numerous places. The MajT is a family of texts that show a number of differences from various manuscripts. The TR was edited several times each time making changes to it.

As you admitted even the KJV has had errors in it.

This is part of your problem. You are learning from false teachers who attack the word of God without shame. There are many good resources out there who can help you combat the lies that you have bought into. In this day and age, there is no reason to continue in unbelief about the Bible.

Believe whatever you like.
I believe:
Barry Burton is not a liar.
The KJV is God's preserved Word; it is infallible [when you understand it correctly]
The KJV bible, being God's inspired Word, I use it as the measure to deterimine what is true and what is not true.

The Alexandrian texts, vaticannus and sinaiticus, (property of the vatican) are corrupted texts from one city, Alexandria, Egypt; a hotbed of gnostic heresy for centuries.

[note: the Isaiah scroll in the dead sea scrolls matches the massoretic text Isaiah word for word. It is the massoretic text that was used in palestine at the time of Jesus and the apostles.]

You believe whatever you like.
I will believe whatever God leads me to believe; I pray to Him to control what I believe and know.
I will believe whatever I like.

 

[antiaging]

Regardless, my question still holds. I suggest that there is a reason certain versions/editions are the ones consistently at the top. Those appear to generally be (currently) the NIV, KJV, and NKJV, with the NLT a strong fourth, according to some sites I just checked, and which I will list, below.

Interestingly enough, for one month, the "profit driven" copyrighted NIV, actually ranked #1 for sales units, but #2 in dollar volume, while, only last month, the 'non- copyrighted' KJV, published with only supposedly 'pure' ideals, according to some, and where no such 'greed for filthy lucre' is actually a factor, apparently, was #4 in volume sales, but #2 in dollars, while the version 'owned' by that money-grubbing outfit of Thomas Nelson, the NKJV, was #2 in units sold, but only #4 in bucks realized.

Uh- is something not exactly adding up, here? Incidentally, these are not my figures, at all, but those of the CBA, and I suggest they have no reason to be biased in presenting this data, in any manner.

http://homepage.mac.com/rmansfield/thislamp/files/20071126_december_2007_bible_sales_rankings.html

http://www.newepistles.com/2008/02/bible-sales-ranking-for-march.html

http://www.cbaonline.org/nm/documents/BSLs/Bible_Translations.pdf

It is interesting to note that some versions, that have been oft 'hyped', in various places, including the BB, are barely, if at all, even visible among the "Top 10", while some others that 'receive far less press' are hanging in there, including the NKJV and HCSB, to name a couple, and both of which are far more 'Baptistic' in nature, than are most.

Your or my preferences notwithstanding (and for now the umpteenth time, I am not a particular fan of the NIV), once again, I would suggest that God has something to do with this. Other versions, such as the RSV never came close to living up to 'hype' and expectations, for long, but the NIV has been at or near the top, along with the KJV, and almost from its appearance, and has stayed there for a quarter of a century, and actually attained this position, without any subtle (or not-so-subtle, as the case may be) help from 'government or an official state church.

There is no legitimacy to any argument for one version over the other, in this regard, for the only official advocate the NIV had, is and was Zondervan, and the Zondervan created entity, The IBS.

Ed

Reason certain ones are at the top; top of what, popularity.
Ed, the unsaved will always outnumber the saved.
The false prophets, (like in the Old Testament) will always outnumber the true prophets.
Popularity is a wrong standard to judge bibles.

Matthew 7:13 Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:
Matthew 7:14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

Yeah, there is a reason they are on top.

1 Timothy 4:1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;

In these latter time apostate times before antichrist is revealed many will depart from the faith.
Since the faith of Christianity is built on God's Word, that must mean many will depart from God's Word.

We have had God's Word in the KJV bible for centuries. Now men are departing from it to altered bible versions.

Suppose appostacy is happening; don't you think altered bibles would be the most popular in apostate times?

2 Timothy 4:3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;

Yeah there is a reason.

It seems to me the altered versions will increase in popularity the closer we get to the end.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

In these latter time apostate times before antichrist is revealed many will depart from the faith.
Since the faith of Christianity is built on God's Word, that must mean many will depart from God's Word.

We have had God's Word in the KJV bible for centuries. Now men are departing from it to altered bible versions.

Suppose appostacy is happening; don't you think altered bibles would be the most popular in apostate times?

2 Timothy 4:3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;

Yeah there is a reason.

It seems to me the altered versions will increase in popularity the closer we get to the end.

Praise God people did not have this mindset in 1611 or we wouldn't have the KJV!

 

[Rippon]

Popularity is a wrong standard to judge bibles.

Okay then.Don't ever let me catch you telling us how popular the KJV was for hundreds of years.

Matthew 7:13 Enter ye in at the strait ['narrow' -- as most MV's have put it for decades --Rip] gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat [or through it --Rip]:
Matthew 7:14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

Fine Scripture which has nothing to do with the topic at-hand.

Yeah, there is a reason they are on top.

1 Timothy 4:1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;

And by this you're maintaining that those who do not use the KJV have departed from the faith?!Rubbish.

In these latter time apostate times before antichrist is revealed many will depart from the faith.
Since the faith of Christianity is built on God's Word, that must mean many will depart from God's Word.

More garbage if by quoting these verses you're claiming that those who read,study and meditate from MV's are consequently departing from God's Word.

We have had God's Word in the KJV bible for centuries. Now men are departing from it to altered bible versions.

Yeah.And before the KJV we had God's word for centuries.The Vulgate (in its various forms) was around a lot longer than the KJV has been since its inception.

Suppose appostacy is happening; don't you think altered bibles would be the most popular in apostate times?

By 'altered Bibles' you mean translations which are not KJV ( in its various forms).MV's are different from the KJV and are more popular because of increased accuracy and readibility.It's not at all a sign of apostasy.That is just sinful on your part to even suggest such a stupid connection.

2 Timothy 4:3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;

Again.That's a great passage.It's very true.Have you thought of the possibility that KJV Onlyism may be a false doctrine which carnal-minded folks gravite toward due to their itching ears?

It seems to me the altered versions will increase in popularity the closer we get to the end.

Instead of calling them 'altered versions' how about calling them Modern Versions?Most of them are faithful and fine works of scholarship.Their increasing popularity has absolutely nothing to do with people rejecting the Gospel.

Due to time differences I am able to respond to AA's insubstantial remarks.Others of you who will awaken to his drips and drabs can respond with more pointed comments.

 

[rbell]

We have had God's Word in the KJV bible for centuries. Now men are departing from it to altered bible versions.

Suppose appostacy is happening; don't you think altered bibles would be the most popular in apostate times?

I appreciate your calling me an apostate.

Coming from you, that is a compliment.

 

[EdSutton]

A point of correction

There is no legitimacy to any argument for one version over the other, in this regard, for the only official advocate the NIV had, is and was Zondervan, and the Zondervan created entity, The IBS.

I had received some incorrect information, and thought that Zondervan (founded 1931) actually had created the IBS. In fact, the IBS dates to 1809, and was the actual originator of the NIV, and partner(s) with Zondervan, in publishing the NIV.

Ed

 

[annsni]

Let's look at NIV in regard of "morning star."

Isa. 14:12 NIV
How you have fallen from heaven, O morning star, son of the dawn! You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations!

Rev 22:16 NIV
I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give you this testimony for the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, and the bright Morning Star.

Isa. 14:12 refers "morning star" to Lucifer. Rev. 22:16 refers "morning star" to Jesus. Therefore NIV said Satan is Jesus.

ROTFL - Then so did the KJV translators. "Lucifer" was the translation from the Latin. It is not in the original Hebrew. The word "halal" is not a proper name. Might want to read my post a bit back explaining the truth of the translation.

 

[annsni]

Praise God people did not have this mindset in 1611 or we wouldn't have the KJV!

So true. And what is interesting is when you read the history of the Bible translations, you find that many of the men who worked in translating the Scriptures were put down for making something "new". Jerome was told that making a new translation (into Hebrew - but not using the Septuagent) was wrong because it was "unfamiliar".

The KJVO arguments are nothing new. The same arguments were used against the texts that underly the KJV. It's sad that there are those who worship a translation rather than truth. There's just so many lies circulating that are perpetuated and it just goes to show that fools will continue to follow fools.

 

[annsni]

What I find really interesting is the fact that the cults that have come and go have not been based on modern versions but the KJV. How can someone say that those who leave the faith do so because of the modern versions when those who have been so against God and what His Word teaches have done so using the KJV? David Koresh, Jim Jones, etc. have all stood on the KJV. Even the Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses that I have spoken to have used the KJV. So the KJV does not guarantee that one will be faithful to God.