Bible Versions - let's explore

[e=mv^2]

This seems to be quite the heated topic. Maybe someone could lay out specific references to the different versions and why it is that you feel the KJV is more correct? Let's all assume that versions by "groups" that are known to be purposefully altered are right out and not consider those. I would like to see a breakdown on say:

King James Version
New King James Version
Modern King James Edition
Literal Translation of the Bible
New International Version / Student Bible
American Standard Version (ASV)
New American Standard Bible

Shall we assume that the KJV is the one that the others will be compared to? I think that we should be mainly concerned with content with wording being a secondary element to discuss. Let us all take a deep breath and take our personal feelings out of this for a moment and actually examine the differences.

I will start us off.

In the

In the American Standard 1917 Uses the word "Jehovah" while the KJV uses "LORD".

Jack Chick in one of his essays (http://www.chick.com/reading/books/158/158_10.asp) makes the point that the ASV/NASB/RSV is a fraud because it does not contain the phrase "and was carried up into the heaven" at the end of Luke 24:51 (at least that is what I got out of it.)
In my ASV and in the NASB version that I was able to find on the web the phrase is right where it should be. So I do not get Mr. Chick's point in this.

[TwinCrier]

The revisions are often revised more than once. The KJV has been revised updating the spelling of words as they change over time. (Saviour for example). You really have to specify what year the revision/version came out.

[Normann]

This seems to be quite the heated topic...
...Let us all take a deep breath and take our personal feelings out of this for a moment and actually examine the differences.

Jack Chick in one of his essays (http://www.chick.com/reading/books/158/158_10.asp) makes the point that the ASV/NASB/RSV is a fraud because it does not contain the phrase "and was carried up into the heaven" at the end of Luke 24:51 (at least that is what I got out of it.)
In my ASV and in the NASB version that I was able to find on the web the phrase is right where it should be. So I do not get Mr. Chick's point in this.

I agree that we not have personal feeling toward any translation, instead search for truth.
Just one note if I may, I've been told (?) one or more of the translation has been changed a couple of times! You may want to look into that and I will also, let me know what you find out.

Thanks,
Normann

[AVBunyan]

Jack Chick in one of his essays (http://www.chick.com/reading/books/158/158_10.asp) makes the point that the ASV/NASB/RSV is a fraud because it does not contain the phrase "and was carried up into the heaven" at the end of Luke 24:51 (at least that is what I got out of it.)
In my ASV and in the NASB version that I was able to find on the web the phrase is right where it should be. So I do not get Mr. Chick's point in this.
Mr. Chick just may be in error on this point for he is not infallible but I believe he is right on his basic stand regarding the corruptness of the modern versions vs. the purity of the King James.

God bless

[e=mv^2]

Mr. Chick just may be in error on this point for he is not infallible but I believe he is right on his basic stand regarding the corruptness of the modern versions vs. the purity of the King James.

Cool - now please share with us why it is that you belive that. If you could compare/contrast any of the versions I would like to hear what you have to say.

[AVBunyan]

Cool - now please share with us why it is that you belive that. If you could compare/contrast any of the versions I would like to hear what you have to say.
I'd like to do some comparisons but right now my right wrist is a bit sore so I cannot type to much (happens on these forums often) but if I can I'll work on somethings this afternoon while I'm off.

In the mean time why not look through some links.

http://av1611bible.com/links/av1611.htm

God bless :wave:

[TwinCrier]

A good source for verse-by-verse comparison is this one: http://www.biblebelievers.com/New_Eye_Opener.html
It lists many of the verses that have changes that effect doctrine.

[AVBunyan]

A good source for verse-by-verse comparison is this one: http://www.biblebelievers.com/New_Eye_Opener.html
It lists many of the verses that have changes that effect doctrine.
Nice site - the last paragragh sums up the real issue:

"HERE'S THE ACID TEST Any version of the Bible, that does not agree with the GREEK TEXTUS RECEPTUS, from which the King James Bible was translated in 1611, is certainly to befounded upon corrupted manuscripts. Origen, being a textual critic, is supposed to have corrected numerous portions of the sacred manuscripts. Evidence to the contrary shows he changed them to agree with his own human philosophy of mystical and allegorical ideas. Thus, through deceptive scholarship of this kind, certain manuscripts became corrupt. Evidently from this source our modern revised version Bibles and paraphrases have come. Read pages 900-902, Vol. 16, 1936 edition Encyclopedia Britannica, and you will see that Origen taught the Lord Jesus Christ is a created being who did not have eternal existence AS God."

Folks need to understand the the modern versions are not an AV just updated. The modern versions come from a completely different set of manuscripts that originated in Egypt. The new versions are basically Origen's interpretation of God's word. Here is another article that shows a brief history of where these "bibles" came from:

A quick history lesson showing the Origen of all modern versions: Many people have been sold a bill off goods – they’ve been taught that the new versions are just updated King James Bibles with new information. All modern versions can be traced back to a lost philosopher named Origen in the 3rd century A.D. A few comments were added for interest – some may find them worthless but that’s fine.

1. Origen – 3rd century philosopher (Col 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit,)

2. Origen was from Alexandria, Egypt – (a type of the world, God called His Son out of that country; Joseph didn’t even want his bones to stay in Egypt)

3. Origen ran a school of philosophers (Col. 2:8).

4. Origen’s beliefs – didn’t believe the first three chapters of Genesis were literal, questioned the deity of Christ, works salvation, allegorized most of Bible

5. Decided to get into the Bible translation business; came up with a 5-column hexaphala – had 4 of his philosophers (Col. 2:8) to help him. Each philosopher (Col. 2:8) took a column and put down what he thought the Old Testament said. Origen’s column was the 5th. The translations were written in Classical Greek (more complicated), not Koine Greek (the common spoken language which the Bibles of the real New Testament were written in).

6. This hexaphala sat around stinking up the place because nobody wanted it until Constantine was looking for some Old Testament Bibles for his new ecumenical denomination. He asked his bootlicker, Eusebius, where he could get some new Bibles. Esebius got all excited and said, “I know just the place!” So, he scampers down to Egypt, like a snake slithering down a drainpipe and asks Origen about where he could get some new versions. Origen says, “I’ve done some translating here, take a look at my 5th
column.”

7. Eusebius takes 50 copies of Origen’s 5th column and brings them back to Constantine. Vaticanus and Sinaiaticus most likely came from these. They were written on velum scrolls, which is why they stayed in tact so long, plus, nobody read them – God didn’t have His hand on them. The scriptures were written on papyrus and wasted away because people read and copied them – in other words God used them.

8. From here they end up in Rome with its religion (Catholic).

9. From here they circulate around Italy, Spain, and France (Roman Catholic).

10. In 1400’s or so these manuscripts become the Duoy Rheims (Roman Catholic).

11. From there the Catholics take their version to the Americas.

12. The rest of the “Alexandrian bibles” stay locked up in Rome and monasteries. God didn’t want this line circulated to the common people anyway.

13. These “bibles” were available to the KJV translators in 1611 and they ignored them because they knew junk when they saw it.

14. In 1881 a conference was called to “update” the AV1611. Two “Christian” bible critics (Westcott and Hort) said they had the best and oldest manuscripts. Where do you think they got them? You got it – Vaticanus and Sinaiticus type stuff. They snuck them into the revision committee saying these were the best of the bunch and sold them as fish wraps disguised as manuscripts.

15. From this committee you got the RV 1881

16. America joined in the fun with their committee in 1901 – they used the same junk the RV came from and they came up with the AV1901 – from there it went to the RSV, NASV, Good News, Living Bible, NRSV, the New New New RSV, NIV, and all the rest of the new versions.

Well there it is – I’m sure there will be some grumbling in the barracks and I’m sure many will dispute my history but that is how I see it – the new versions are basically Catholic bibles – I’m sure Rome is tickled.

The above is why all the newer versions read similiar and why the KJV reads completely different - they come from completely different sets of manuscripts. The modern versions were written in Calssical Greek (fancier language)while the AV came from texts that were written in Koine Greek (a more common and easier Greek to read).

Folks there is a difference.

God bless - :wave:

[e=mv^2]

THERE WE GO!!!! Gold I tell you. That is exactly what I was after. Excellent job TwinCrier thank you! :thumbsup:

[Shane Roach]

Hmm. Is there any way for me to be sure my King James is the right version? It just says 'King James Version" on the title page, with nothing about the 1611.

I checked a few of the referenced verses and found mine was ok on those few... Anyhow, just was wondering.

I had no idea there was this going on. I was especially interested in the change that refers to Christ as her firstborn, as that certainly implies others afterwards.

[twistedsketch]

Did you get yours from the Mormons? My roomate is ex-mormon and has his KJV that they gave him. It doesn't tell you the revision date or anything. (He uses an NIV now though :) )

[gtsecc]

KJV 1611 includes Tobit doesn't it?

[TwinCrier]

Hmm. Is there any way for me to be sure my King James is the right version? It just says 'King James Version" on the title page, with nothing about the 1611.

I checked a few of the referenced verses and found mine was ok on those few... Anyhow, just was wondering.

You probably don't have a 1611. There would be many words that have changed spelling that would stand out. The original typeface used would be hard to read too. Really fancy, gothic style looking thing. Someone on this board one posted a photocopy of a page from the 1611. It was very pretty.

[eldermike]

I did a quick check with the link and used Ephesians because it was a short one. One of the examples is wrong. 6:1 in the NIV has the text that is reported missing. All the others are just grammer issues. The book if Ephesians begins with the "LORD JESUS CHRIST" as the subject of all the instructions, and it's written to "the saints" repeating this is just bad grammer actually.

Words can be translated but grammer is another issue. As an example the Message is an attempt at grammer correction, it's pretty useful in comparing to poor word for word translations where the grammer rules can't be translated using a word for word method.

Just my opinion, it's all I have to say on this.

[Rich48]

KJV 1611 includes Tobit doesn't it?

Yes, it did, plus the other books that are not included in the KJV today.

Rich

[gtsecc]

Yes, it did, plus the other books that are not included in the KJV today.

Rich
Wow, I think it is great that you all accept them.:crossrc:

[Rich48]

Wow, I think it is great that you all accept them.:crossrc:

Hmm-I do not believe that I said that :scratch: . All I said was to agree with you that the original KJV of 1611 contained a number of books that are not in the current revisions of that translation.

For the record, I am NOT KJV only. It is not my first choice for a translation.

Rich

[Shane Roach]

I did a quick check with the link and used Ephesians because it was a short one. One of the examples is wrong. 6:1 in the NIV has the text that is reported missing. All the others are just grammer issues. The book if Ephesians begins with the "LORD JESUS CHRIST" as the subject of all the instructions, and it's written to "the saints" repeating this is just bad grammer actually.

Words can be translated but grammer is another issue. As an example the Message is an attempt at grammer correction, it's pretty useful in comparing to poor word for word translations where the grammer rules can't be translated using a word for word method.

Just my opinion, it's all I have to say on this.

All I know is when I compare what other people's Bibles say to what the KJV says, often there are difference. For example, today in Sunday school someone's translation had Abraham laughing silently to himself, whereas the KJV does not say to himself. I don't see these sorts of things as just grammatical issues. They go to setting tone and can effect understanding. I do not trust much of what now is called modern scholarship on the subject. Too much of it is based on inference rather than an honest attempt at strict translation of what is on the page.

[JM]

Wow, I think it is great that you all accept them.:crossrc:

I don't believe the KJV translators accepted them, they stuck them in the middle between the O.T. and the N.T...kinda like having historical bagge they didn't know what to do with.

:angel:

[EdmundBlackadderTheThird]

The problem with KJV Only is many fold:

1. You would have to assume that Engloish is/was/will be a perfect language for translation from Koine Greek. It has not been nor will it ever be as the grammatical constructs are completely different and English doesn't even have words for everythig Greek does.

2. You would have to assume that every single one of the translators was inspired and made no mistakes.

3. You would have to assume that every single one of the scribes was inspired and made no mistakes.

4. You would have to accept that the Apocrypha was part of scripture as it was included in 1611.

5. If it was perfect then there would have never been any need of correction save updating the language and spelling and grammar was corrected over and over again during the early years of the translation.

6. The very fact it was commissioned by a known pedophile sheds a dark light on it's being perfect.

7. The translators never even thought it was perfect. The KJV only movement is very new in church history, it is a modern movement.

There's more but I will let the KJV only advocates address those points first before going further.