Bible version

[Dave_Regenerated]

To me, the NKJV is the best of the modern English Bibles, but since I find the Authorized King James Bible easy enough to understand, having used it for more than 40 years, I just stick to what I know and trust.

I do like the NKJV, there's something about the KJV that I can't put my finger on that makes it different to all the other translations in that it has a certain beauty and depth I don't find in the others. I progressively changed from KJV to ESV to NKJV to NASB to NIV to NLT. I was saved reading a KJV so maybe I might be a bit biased. I am not a KJV only person. I think James White did a good job of dismantling that whole thing. However, I recently came across some information that has made me think twice about the KJV, which is that there seems to be many verses omitted from the newer translations that are in the KJV. I wonder about that. Why would that be the case?

I want to get back to the KJV but it can be hard for me to understand sometimes. I just need to practice more. I say this too as a native Englishman who can recognise some old English remnants of speech in modern language (don't ask me to explain that, I can't).

Another thing, I noticed that Paul's epistles in the KJV are very difficult to follow whereas the newer translations, especially the NLT, really help it to make more sense to me. I was saved reading Paul in the KJV!

 

[Instant]

I do like the NKJV, there's something about the KJV that I can't put my finger on that makes it different to all the other translations in that it has a certain beauty and depth I don't find in the others. I progressively changed from KJV to ESV to NKJV to NASB to NIV to NLT. I was saved reading a KJV so maybe I might be a bit biased. I am not a KJV only person. I think James White did a good job of dismantling that whole thing. However, I recently came across some information that has made me think twice about the KJV, which is that there seems to be many verses omitted from the newer translations that are in the KJV. I wonder about that. Why would that be the case?

I want to get back to the KJV but it can be hard for me to understand sometimes. I just need to practice more. I say this too as a native Englishman who can recognise some old English remnants of speech in modern language (don't ask me to explain that, I can't).

Another thing, I noticed that Paul's epistles in the KJV are very difficult to follow whereas the newer translations, especially the NLT, really help it to make more sense to me. I was saved reading Paul in the KJV!

I have no idea what James White said, or what his arguments are, but I am not KJV only because I think the KJV is absolute perfection. I am KJV only because it started with the original manuscripts, and it is complete. At the same time, I can say that about the Geneva Bible and the NKJV Bible. I also like the old English when it comes to scripture. It helps me recognize it as scripture when it comes to my mind. I have read the Bible cover to cover more than 20 times, so I am very used to it, and when I listen to the Bible being read, I listen to Alexander Scorby reading the KJV Bible.

When I read modern translations, they do make it easy, but are they interpreting it right. It is like with a paraphrase like the Amplified Bible. I would rather just use the KJV Bible and a Strong's Dictionary when needed. I used to turn to the Strong's Dictionary frequently, but I learned the words over time, so I rarely need to now.

 

[Dave_Regenerated]

I have no idea what James White said, or what his arguments are, but I am not KJV only because I think the KJV is absolute perfection. I am KJV only because it started with the original manuscripts, and it is complete. At the same time, I can say that about the Geneva Bible and the NKJV Bible. I also like the old English when it comes to scripture. It helps me recognize it as scripture when it comes to my mind. I have read the Bible cover to cover more than 20 times, so I am very used to it, and when I listen to the Bible being read, I listen to Alexander Scorby reading the KJV Bible.

When I read modern translations, they do make it easy, but are they interpreting it right. It is like with a paraphrase like the Amplified Bible. I would rather just use the KJV Bible and a Strong's Dictionary when needed. I used to turn to the Strong's Dictionary frequently, but I learned the words over time, so I rarely need to now.

Are you saying the NKJV doesn't omit any passages that can be found in the KJV?

 

[Instant]

Are you saying the NKJV doesn't omit any passages that can be found in the KJV?

I haven't compared every single verse, but it does use the Textus Receptus in addition to other texts and seems better than other modern English translations I have come across. I forget which one it is, but there is actually one translation that adds to the text and has a Psalm 151.

 

[David1701]

Well, I know this, that I used to read the KJV and I didn't have much trouble understanding it as it seemed to grow on me and I got more used to it, it became easier to understand after some time. But I haven't read it in a very long time now, so perhaps I've gotten out of "touch" with it.

One other thing. As we can see from these many different translations, how do you answer the skeptic who says they are all different? How can we maintain that God's Word is supposed to be preserved when there are so many different versions that almost seem to be saying different things?

Will we all communicate telepathically in heaven? I mean, presumably if Moses is there and I don't speak ancient Hebrew, we aren't going to be able to communicate!

PS the NKJV seems to be the clearest here.

Some translations are sound and some are not. This depends upon several factors: the knowledge and understanding of the translators; what they believe; their diligence and carefulness; their integrity, etc..

Examples of sound translations in English would be: Matthews Bible, Geneva Bible, KJV, Webster Bible, NKJV, VW, KJ3, and the World English Bible, etc..

Examples of unsound translations would be: The Message, The Living Bible, the Good News Bible, New English Bible, the NIV, the RSV, the NCV, the JW's translation, etc..

There are also translations by people who are doctrinally sound, but who have used a corrupted, minority Greek text for the New Testament; some examples would be: NASB, ESV, HCSB, etc..

If you stick to the list of sound translations (it's not a complete list), then you'll find that the differences in meaning and/or underlying text are few and far between. Many of the differences that there are, are due to different ways of saying the same thing in English, or ambiguity in the original.

 

[David1701]

I haven't compared every single verse, but it does use the Textus Receptus in addition to other texts and seems better than other modern English translations I have come across. I forget which one it is, but there is actually one translation that adds to the text and has a Psalm 151.

Psalm 151 is from the Septuagint (an old Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament). I have a Bible called the "Logos Bible" which is translated from the Septuagint, in the OT, and which contains Psalm 151; but I have to say that Psalm 151 does not come across as inspired.

 

[David1701]

Yes, it is, and it has the Apocrypha in the middle. I read it cover to cover 3 times, including the Apocrypha. You are correct about the Authorized version making a few corrections to typos, although I have seen minor typographical errors in the Authorized Version because a publisher messed up. That happens.

When I was Pastor of a Pentecostal Holiness Church, a member gave me a copy of the 1611 version. I wanted to compare it to the Authorized version, so I read it cover to cover. It was hard at first, but I picked it up pretty fast. I could read it pretty well by the time I finished Genesis, but the Roman numerals in Psalms can be tricky. I have preached from the 1611 Bible.

Okay, thanks for that.

Just one thing though - the 1611 KJV is properly titled the "Authorised Version" (as are all later editions). King James authorised it to be read in churches.

 

[David1701]

I do like the NKJV, there's something about the KJV that I can't put my finger on that makes it different to all the other translations in that it has a certain beauty and depth I don't find in the others. I progressively changed from KJV to ESV to NKJV to NASB to NIV to NLT. I was saved reading a KJV so maybe I might be a bit biased. I am not a KJV only person. I think James White did a good job of dismantling that whole thing. However, I recently came across some information that has made me think twice about the KJV, which is that there seems to be many verses omitted from the newer translations that are in the KJV. I wonder about that. Why would that be the case?

I want to get back to the KJV but it can be hard for me to understand sometimes. I just need to practice more. I say this too as a native Englishman who can recognise some old English remnants of speech in modern language (don't ask me to explain that, I can't).

Another thing, I noticed that Paul's epistles in the KJV are very difficult to follow whereas the newer translations, especially the NLT, really help it to make more sense to me. I was saved reading Paul in the KJV!

Careful with the NLT! It's a very biased and interpretive translation - not trustworthy at all (and based on the corrupted minority text, in the NT).

You might like the World English Bible (available free online and you can get printed editions (not free)), which is based on the Majority Text, in the NT, and is an update of the ASV but in more modern English.

 

[Dave_Regenerated]

Careful with the NLT! It's a very biased and interpretive translation - not trustworthy at all (and based on the corrupted minority text, in the NT).

You might like the World English Bible (available free online and you can get printed editions (not free)), which is based on the Majority Text, in the NT, and is an update of the ASV but in more modern English.

I stopped using the NLT anyway.

Why are the manuscripts for the newer translations considered corrupt?

 

[David1701]

I stopped using the NLT anyway.

Why are the manuscripts for the newer translations considered corrupt?

The small number of manuscripts upon which the Critical Text (the Greek text used as the foundation for most modern Bible translations) is based, disagree with each other a huge number of times, which is evidence of corruptness, in itself. Add to that the fact that the believing Church (the body of Christ, not a denomination), throughout Church history, has used the type of text found in the majority of manuscripts, and not the distinctive readings in the CT; and that the minority text (the Critical Text) manuscripts all come from one geographical area (Egypt - known for heresy in the early centuries) and one time period; and that the people responsible for bringing in, and maintaining, the Critical text are mostly heretics; and that the Critical Text was not widely used until the 20th C., and you have the answer, in a nutshell.

 

[Dave_Regenerated]

The small number of manuscripts upon which the Critical Text (the Greek text used as the foundation for most modern Bible translations) is based, disagree with each other a huge number of times, which is evidence of corruptness, in itself. Add to that the fact that the believing Church (the body of Christ, not a denomination), throughout Church history, has used the type of text found in the majority of manuscripts, and not the distinctive readings in the CT; and that the minority text (the Critical Text) manuscripts all come from one geographical area (Egypt - known for heresy in the early centuries) and one time period; and that the people responsible for bringing in, and maintaining, the Critical text are mostly heretics; and that the Critical Text was not widely used until the 20th C., and you have the answer, in a nutshell.

That depends upon whether everybody agrees that the Alexandrian texts were not in use for long periods of time by the early Christians. If corruption consists of the addition of anything remotely gnostic inspired, this should be seen in the manuscripts themselves, and none of the newest translations contain anything Gnostic inspired.

I would like to believe in that Gnostic conspiracy theory, but apart from someone called Gail Riplinger, I don't know any other sources that predate her claiming that the new translations have gnosticism in them. Do you know of any?

 

[David1701]

That depends upon whether everybody agrees that the Alexandrian texts were not in use for long periods of time by the early Christians. If corruption consists of the addition of anything remotely gnostic inspired, this should be seen in the manuscripts themselves, and none of the newest translations contain anything Gnostic inspired.

I would like to believe in that Gnostic conspiracy theory, but apart from someone called Gail Riplinger, I don't know any other sources that predate her claiming that the new translations have gnosticism in them. Do you know of any?

Ah, now you're assuming that I was talking about a "Gnostic conspiracy theory", but I wasn't. Please re-read what I posted, minus the "Gnostic conspiracy theory" assumption.

Oh, and, yes, the vast majority of textual critics agree that the Alexandrian texts were not in use for long periods of time. There is not even any evidence that they were the dominant text type in Egypt.

 

[Dave_Regenerated]

Ah, now you're assuming that I was talking about a "Gnostic conspiracy theory", but I wasn't. Please re-read what I posted, minus the "Gnostic conspiracy theory" assumption.

Oh, and, yes, the vast majority of textual critics agree that the Alexandrian texts were not in use for long periods of time. There is not even any evidence that they were the dominant text type in Egypt.

OK.

So why do modern Bible translators use these Alexandrian texts?

 

[David1701]

OK.

So why do modern Bible translators use these Alexandrian texts?

Now we are in the realm of speculation. My educated guess would be: spiritual decline in the professing Church.

 

[Dave_Regenerated]

Now we are in the realm of speculation. My educated guess would be: spiritual decline in the professing Church.

So you do not know why modern translators use those texts that are supposed to be corrupt because it is just speculation only.

Thank you for offering your guess. I don't ever see decline in the church happening in history up to the present day. I see trends where things become fashionable and unfashionable in cycles through time. And I don't see Christ not saving people today as in the past.

 

[Dave_Regenerated]

Now we are in the realm of speculation. My educated guess would be: spiritual decline in the professing Church.

Also, a translation that isn't based on any theories about corruption and so on, will not have any effect on a person born again by God. If the newer translations reflect modern English language usage, we already have that with the NKJV, so others like NASB aren't wrong somehow - they are just different translations.

 

[David1701]

So you do not know why modern translators use those texts that are supposed to be corrupt because it is just speculation only.

Thank you for offering your guess. I don't ever see decline in the church happening in history up to the present day. I see trends where things become fashionable and unfashionable in cycles through time. And I don't see Christ not saving people today as in the past.

The advance of Rationalism, in the 19th C., led to a decline of trust in God's word. This decline has continued to the present day.

The percentage of professing Christians, in Britain, in the 1980s was about 67 %; in 2008, it was about 50%; and in 2019 it was about 38%. Of course, the number of real Christians is much lower, and the majority are elderly...

 

[David1701]

Also, a translation that isn't based on any theories about corruption and so on, will not have any effect on a person born again by God. If the newer translations reflect modern English language usage, we already have that with the NKJV, so others like NASB aren't wrong somehow - they are just different translations.

You clearly have not studied the differences between the underlying texts.

I can remember, clearly, trying to prove certain important doctrines from my NIV, in the late 1980s, and, again and again, I found that the strongest verses were either missing, or weakened. It was still possible to demonstrate the important doctrines, but not nearly as easy as with my NKJV.

Then there are the footnotes... When you get to Mark 16:9, and you see a note telling you that verses 9-20 are not in the "oldest and best manuscripts", what are you to think? Are these verses inspired by the Holy Spirit and completely trustworthy, or are they uninspired junk (it's one or the other)? If they are inspired, then the note needs to go! If they are uninspired, then the verses need to go. The one thing that you cannot do, is what the NIV (and other) translators did - leave the verses in, but cast doubt on them. Doing this demonstrates a disregard for the word of God in general and influences people to doubt the verbal inspiration of Scripture.

Verses 9-20 are in nearly every Greek manuscript that contains the ending of Mark (with slight variations) - many hundreds of them. They are missing from THREE manuscripts (one of which is not treated as important by anyone), manuscripts that disagree with each other as often as they agree and that are riddled with copyists errors. To call these "oldest and best" is deceptive, to say the least, especially when the vast weight of countervailing evidence is completely ignored (compare the note in the NKJV, which is MUCH better).

I could go on all day about the details, but the generality is clear - the heart behind translations like the Geneva and KJV is not the same as the doubting disregard that is displayed in most modern translations (with a few honourable exceptions).

 

[Sereni-tea]

I can remember, clearly, trying to prove certain important doctrines from my NIV, in the late 1980s, and, again and again, I found that the strongest verses were either missing, or weakened. It was still possible to demonstrate the important doctrines, but not nearly as easy as with my NKJV.

May I ask what these important doctrine were?

 

[David1701]

May I ask what these important doctrine were?

Yes, you may.

Oh, I suppose you want an answer as well. Alright then, things like the deity of Christ, his omnipresence during his earthly ministry, the need for faith as a pre-requisite for water baptism, that there should be signs following the preaching of the gospel; oh, and showing the verse that God used to save me (it was missing from the edition of the NIV in use at that time, although I believe that it has been put back in later editions). There were a few other things, but I can't remember what they were.