What are the true differences between the KJV and other versions?

[franklinmonroe]

I have a friend arguing that of the 5,200 Greek manuscripts that exist today, 99% of the text agrees word-for-word with the 1611 King James Bible. ...

I can appreciate where you are going with your line of inquiry. Factually, neither the KJV nor any other translation has been made from over 5,000 manuscripts; they are made from a few printed critical (collated) texts. Additionally, it is not technically possible to meaningfully state that any translation (even raw interlinear) agrees "word-for-word" with it's source text, for multiple reasons, perhaps the most obvious is that most languages just do not contain exact equivalency for many terms. Logically, that should be enough to put a stop to your friend's assertion right away.

But for the moment let us entertain for the suggestion behind your friend's misinformation. It would be equally true that an accurate translation from the same source text (TR Greek) using more than 1% different English words than the those of the KJV (now think NKJV) could still make the same claim: that this other translation is also within 99% of the source text. In other words, each translation could be within 1% of the original source but yet be 2% or more apart from each other. I can imagine many different English translations all of which would be different from one another but within 1% of the TR. Oh! I don't have to image them. They've already been produced! Can we possibly think the KJV and Bishop's Bible are only 1% different from one another?

So what is the true differences? How much do the KJV and MVs differ from each other, how much are insignificant differences ("Jesus Christ" vs. "Christ Jesus") and how many are more significant (the "missing verses", longer texts and harmonizations)? What is the true percentage of difference between them?

While it is possible to determine the differences between two English translations, the data only describes the difference between the two translations and says nothing about accuracy toward the source text (as I've written above). So, it has not been done often because it is a lot of work and doesn't really prove anything. Mostly those few comparisons have been shown against the KJV text (with the assumption being that the KJV is accurate and/or is some sort of defacto standard in English).

 

[Logos1560]

I would much rather answer to God believing in his power of one preserved word of truth (KJV) than to be wrong believing God has no power to preserve through translation.

Are you implying that God had no power to preserve the specific words that He gave by inspiration to the prophets and apostles?

According to what proper definition of the word preservation and according to what consistent view of preservation, would different words in a different language be a preservation of the actual specific words that God gave by inspiration to the prophets and apostles?

Are you actually arguing for some type of dynamic equivalent meaning preservation instead of word preservation?

Are you suggesting that the word of truth did not exist until 1611 or that God in effect failed to preserve the Scriptures He gave to the prophets and apostles and had to regive them in 1611?

The Scriptures were translated into English long before 1611. Are you suggesting that the pre-1611 English Bibles were not the word of truth?

 

[Rippon]

Are you suggesting that the word of truth did not exist until 1611 or that God in effect failed to preserve the Scriptures He gave to the prophets and apostles and had to regive them in 1611?

The Scriptures were translated into English long before 1611. Are you suggesting that the pre-1611 English Bibles were not the word of truth?

From a KJVO mindset they would perhaps say that translations in English prior to the KJV were essentially rough drafts - within the framework of acceptability but not yet perfect. "But when the perfect comes..."

 

[John of Japan]

To Jeremiah33:3--

Welcome to the Baptist Board. I hope you stay awhile and bless and be blessed.

Please listen to a little bit of advice, though. If this is your first time on an Internet forum, there are some items of politeness that perhaps you ought to consider: (1) Changing the topic of a thread from the OP (opening post) is not considered polite. (2) Posting in huge letters as you have done is considered "shouting," and actually hurts your cause. (3) Long posts such as yours are very difficult to answer. I couldn't even get the "quote" feature to work on your posts.

Our beloved KJV tells us to love one another. Someone has said that "politeness is love in trifles, and love is no trifle."

God bless.

John of Japan

 

[annsni]

According to the revised version of Josh McDowell's Evidence that Demands a Verdict, Geisler and Nix (I'm not sure which of their books) say that "Only 40 lines (or 400 words) of the New Testament are in doubt whereas 764 lines of the Iliad are questioned. This five percent textual corruption compares with one-half of one percent of similar emendations in the New Testament" (p. 43). Geisler and Nix further say (in McDowell) that "only about one-eighth of all the variants had any weight, as most of them are merely mechanical matters such as spelling or style. Of the whole, then, only about one-sixtieth rise above 'trivialities,' or can in any sense be called 'substantial variation.' Mathematically this would compute to a text that is 98.33 percent pure" (ibid, 44).

Caveat: these figures are based on the work of Westcott and Hort, which work is about 130 years old. So I'm not sure what more recent figures say, but I'll look more later in my library on textual criticism.

John - That is pretty much exactly what I wanted. I know Riplinger (and thus many KJVO followers just take it as fact) state that the KJV is 99% accurate to the Textus Receptus whereas the modern versions are only 1% which absolutely cannot be true unless they are using modern versions of Little Women or something!! Modern versions are WAY more faithful even to the TR than 1%. So I wanted to be able to give them some accurate facts like "Yes, the KJV is 99% accurate to the TR but the modern versions are 2% below that at 97%. It it not like the modern versions have become completely different Bibles and have no basis in the originals. That's a false argument."

 

[Jeremiah33:3]

To Jeremiah33:3--

Welcome to the Baptist Board. I hope you stay awhile and bless and be blessed.

Please listen to a little bit of advice, though. If this is your first time on an Internet forum, there are some items of politeness that perhaps you ought to consider: (1) Changing the topic of a thread from the OP (opening post) is not considered polite. (2) Posting in huge letters as you have done is considered "shouting," and actually hurts your cause. (3) Long posts such as yours are very difficult to answer. I couldn't even get the "quote" feature to work on your posts.

Our beloved KJV tells us to love one another. Someone has said that "politeness is love in trifles, and love is no trifle."

God bless.

John of Japan

Thanks for the welcome & your right, sorry for coming across obnoxiously.

 

[Jeremiah33:3]

Are you implying that God had no power to preserve the specific words that He gave by inspiration to the prophets and apostles?

According to what proper definition of the word preservation and according to what consistent view of preservation, would different words in a different language be a preservation of the actual specific words that God gave by inspiration to the prophets and apostles?

Are you actually arguing for some type of dynamic equivalent meaning preservation instead of word preservation?

Are you suggesting that the word of truth did not exist until 1611 or that God in effect failed to preserve the Scriptures He gave to the prophets and apostles and had to regive them in 1611?

The Scriptures were translated into English long before 1611. Are you suggesting that the pre-1611 English Bibles were not the word of truth?

I just believe what I believe I hope your not offended but it seems like there may have been a time in your life when you made the determination to believe the NIV, ESV, NKJV etc. and if that is the case then this debate will go nowhere. I personally believe that the alexandrian line of the modern bibles are corrupt.

Anyone can debate creation vs evolution the same way it just comes down to why did you come to your belief? Was it the scriptures that led you to your belief?

There are those who hold to the theory that God only preserved His Word in the original languages and in the original autographs. They would say that since chapter and verse divisions were added later by man’s hand, that they could not be inspired. However, the entire Bible has been given to us through the hands of men throughout history. There is not one place in the entire canon of Scripture that tells us we ought to be doubters of the Word; textual critics; “improving” on inspired translations; that we have to learn Hebrew and Greek in order to understand what the Bible “really” means; or that we have to in some way pry the minds of the contemporaries of the Biblical authors in order to find out what the Bible meant to them. The Bible itself tells us that it is written for our generation.
(2 Pet 1:12) "Wherefore I will not be negligent to put you always in remembrance of these things, though ye know them, and be established in the present truth."
Oh, by the way, the word “truth” is found in 222 verses of the Bible! Also, the word “wisdom” is found in 222 verses of the Bible!
Consider the book of wisdom - the book of Proverbs. You will find the word wise exactly 66 (22x3) in the book of Proverbs. You will also find that all the forms of the word know are found exactly 66 times in the book of Proverbs. Maybe it would be too much to ask, but I looked, and in the book of Proverbs you will find all the forms of the word understand exactly 66 times in the book of Proverbs. How many books are there in the Bible?

 

[Jeremiah33:3]

I have a friend arguing that of the 5,200 Greek manuscripts that exist today, 99% of the text agrees word-for-word with the 1611 King James Bible. Only 1% agree with the other Bible versions. Of course this is from Riplinger and is quite deceiving, making one think that in 99% of the text, the modern versions differ from the manuscript evidence but that's incorrect.

So what is the true differences? How much do the KJV and MVs differ from each other, how much are insignificant differences ("Jesus Christ" vs. "Christ Jesus") and how many are more significant (the "missing verses", longer texts and harmonizations)? What is the true percentage of difference between them?

This according to one of the authors of the newer translations.

Dr. Frank Logsdon - who lead the translation of the New American Standard Version. He now renounces the work he did in the NASV and said "I'm afraid I'm in trouble with the Lord." He now concludes that a faulty Greek manuscript was used in the new versions. He now believes that the KJV is absolutely correct.

Straight from the horses mouth.

 

[Logos1560]

They would say that since chapter and verse divisions were added later by man’s hand, that they could not be inspired.

It is a fact that the verse divisions were added later. There are not found in the preserved original language manuscripts.

The 1560 Geneva Bible was the first English translation to have verse divisions with verse numbers. In a few places those divisions and numbers differ from those added in the KJV.

 

[Logos1560]

This according to one of the authors of the newer translations.

Dr. Frank Logsdon - who lead the translation of the New American Standard Version.

Frank Logsdon was not one of the translators of the NASB and did not lead in the making of that translation. You are misinformed.

 

[annsni]

This according to one of the authors of the newer translations.

Dr. Frank Logsdon - who lead the translation of the New American Standard Version. He now renounces the work he did in the NASV and said "I'm afraid I'm in trouble with the Lord." He now concludes that a faulty Greek manuscript was used in the new versions. He now believes that the KJV is absolutely correct.

Straight from the horses mouth.

From the Lockman Foundation:

The Board of Directors of The Lockman Foundation launched the NEW AMERICAN STANDARD BIBLE translation work in the late 1950′s following the completion of the AMPLIFIED NEW TESTAMENT. Dr. S. Franklin Logsdon was acquainted with Dewey Lockman, president of The Lockman Foundation, prior to Mr. Lockman’s death in 1974. Mr. Logsdon was never a member of the Board of Directors, nor was he an employee of The Lockman Foundation. Mr. Logsdon had no authority to hire employees or translators for the Foundation, to set policy, to vote, to hold office, to incur expenses, etc. He cannot be considered “co-founder” of the NASB, nor part of The Lockman Foundation, nor part of the NASB translation team, nor did he write the forward of the NASB. According to our records, he was present at board meetings on two occasions — once to hear a travel report; and once to deliver an “inspirational thought.”

Mr. Logsdon last wrote to Mr. Lockman in fall of 1973 that he was moving to Florida. Mr. Lockman replied that he was surprised and saddened by his decision to leave the area. Mr. Lockman passed away in January of 1974, and no further correspondence was exchanged between Frank Logsdon and The Lockman Foundation. He resided in Florida until his passing some years ago.

The grass withers, the flower fades; but the word of our God stands forever. Isaiah 40:8 (NASB)

See, this is the kind of thing that totally makes me angry about the KJVO thing. Many of the adhereants are told something, they don't search it to see if it's real and pass it on as fact. Yet if they took 2 seconds (how long it took for my Google search to return the answer to this argument), they would find the truth. The truth is not hidden at all - but many refuse to look for it. This reminds me of those who post those things on Facebook that are totally false but are continued on for years. A friend just posted a picture of a little child who supposedly had skin cancer and Facebook would donate $1 for every share yet the picture was one of a child who was burned in a house fire in 2005. 8 years old, wrong information and yet people post it because if they heard it, it must be true.

 

[InTheLight]

From the Lockman Foundation:



See, this is the kind of thing that totally makes me angry about the KJVO thing. Many of the adhereants are told something, they don't search it to see if it's real and pass it on as fact. Yet if they took 2 seconds (how long it took for my Google search to return the answer to this argument), they would find the truth. The truth is not hidden at all - but many refuse to look for it.

In Gail Riplinger's book she had one of those side-by-side verse comparison charts between the KJV and the MV's and in an effort to show that words were missing from the MV's she must have deliberately misquoted verses from the NASB because when I looked up those verses her "missing words" were actually in the NASB!

I thought it was the most underhanded thing I'd ever seen in attempting to advance the KJVO cause but this so-called confession of the NASB translation committee head comes close.

Of course, in Riplinger's case it could have been scholarly incompetence and laziness and not deliberate deception.

 

[Jeremiah33:3]

From the Lockman Foundation:



See, this is the kind of thing that totally makes me angry about the KJVO thing. Many of the adhereants are told something, they don't search it to see if it's real and pass it on as fact. Yet if they took 2 seconds (how long it took for my Google search to return the answer to this argument), they would find the truth. The truth is not hidden at all - but many refuse to look for it. This reminds me of those who post those things on Facebook that are totally false but are continued on for years. A friend just posted a picture of a little child who supposedly had skin cancer and Facebook would donate $1 for every share yet the picture was one of a child who was burned in a house fire in 2005. 8 years old, wrong information and yet people post it because if they heard it, it must be true.

Be not hasty in thy spirit to be angry: for anger resteth in the bosom of fools.

Why are you angry?

What spirit is making you angry that someone wants to believe God's word?

I thank God he has blessed me with the faith to believe his word and I by no means think that because I believe God's word to be pure that I am some how any better than you.

 

[InTheLight]

Be not hasty in thy spirit to be angry: for anger resteth in the bosom of fools.

Why are you angry?

The reason was given in her post:

Many of the adherents are told something, they don't search it to see if it's real and pass it on as fact. Yet if they took 2 seconds (how long it took for my Google search to return the answer to this argument), they would find the truth. The truth is not hidden at all - but many refuse to look for it.

What spirit is making you angry that someone wants to believe God's word?

She's not angry that people want to believe God's word. She's angry that people want to believe falsehoods about KJVO.

 

[Jeremiah33:3]

what is false about Believing the King James Bible?

I mean this sincerely, Please help me understand the bitterness towards KJVO.

would you feel the same way toward an NIVO, NKJVO, NASBO, ESVO, NLTO?

Why does the KJV catch all the static? Why not a simple "God bless you keep reading brother"?


Should you not as a brother or sister say "More power to ya!!"

Do you think my soul is endanger by only believing the KJV?

Is it possible the Modern versions are dangeerous?

shouldnt we all agree?

 

[franklinmonroe]

A couple of quick observations --

... now go to the 666th chapter of the bible Ecclesiates ch 7 which reads:
Ecclesiastes 7:27 Behold, this have I found, saith the preacher, counting one by one, to find out the account:

The word "counting" is not in the original Hebrew, but is an added word by the translation team (it is therefore italicized in the actual KJV text).

... There are 11 verses in Psalm 16... First word is Preserve; last word in verse 11 evermore. Sounds like a 1611 reference to me ;-)

I notice that "preserve" and "forever" are also the first and last word of Psalm 16 in the NASB. What does that mean?

 

[Yeshua1]

I have a friend arguing that of the 5,200 Greek manuscripts that exist today, 99% of the text agrees word-for-word with the 1611 King James Bible. Only 1% agree with the other Bible versions. Of course this is from Riplinger and is quite deceiving, making one think that in 99% of the text, the modern versions differ from the manuscript evidence but that's incorrect.

So what is the true differences? How much do the KJV and MVs differ from each other, how much are insignificant differences ("Jesus Christ" vs. "Christ Jesus") and how many are more significant (the "missing verses", longer texts and harmonizations)? What is the true percentage of difference between them?

Think that MT and the CT agree probably around 85-90 % of the time , at least a high percentage of times, while their disagreements are relatively minor...

NO Greek text , regardless if used, would result in errors in the translation IF properily done right, at least nothing that means major doctrines are affected!

And question for those against the CT, and for TR... Without the originals, how can you decide which is actually closest to them? Aren't they assuming corruptions intentionally placed their by evil persons, trying to delude thechurch?

 

[John of Japan]

John - That is pretty much exactly what I wanted. I know Riplinger (and thus many KJVO followers just take it as fact) state that the KJV is 99% accurate to the Textus Receptus whereas the modern versions are only 1% which absolutely cannot be true unless they are using modern versions of Little Women or something!! Modern versions are WAY more faithful even to the TR than 1%. So I wanted to be able to give them some accurate facts like "Yes, the KJV is 99% accurate to the TR but the modern versions are 2% below that at 97%. It it not like the modern versions have become completely different Bibles and have no basis in the originals. That's a false argument."

Happy to be of help. :wavey:

It's Fri. morning here. After breakfast and devotions with Patty I'm going to work on revising the book of Ephesians in the 3rd draft. I'll start by collating (comparing) the TR and the UBS Greek NTs, then get back to you with actual percentage figures which you can tell your friend come from an ind. Baptist translator.

 

[John of Japan]

Thanks for the welcome & your right, sorry for coming across obnoxiously.

Good answer. God bless! :type:

 

[annsni]

Happy to be of help. :wavey:

It's Fri. morning here. After breakfast and devotions with Patty I'm going to work on revising the book of Ephesians in the 3rd draft. I'll start by collating (comparing) the TR and the UBS Greek NTs, then get back to you with actual percentage figures which you can tell your friend come from an ind. Baptist translator.

John, "watching" the process of translation with you after you've explained much of the process makes me realize just how much each of the "modern version" translators have had to do as well as the old translators. It's not a "Hey, let's write a crappy Bible to push our agenda" but instead, they've respected the process, discussed it, studied it, probably even got frustrated over it. You have my utmost respect for doing what you do!!!! Thank you for working so hard for the Japanese people.