Are modern Bible translations as good as the old ones? KJV versus ESV versus NKJV

[createdtoworship]

my number 1 is NKJV, second is ESV. but I like the byzantine text type, byzantine family, type manuscripts.

so the NKJV/KJV, and 1 or two others are from these manuscripts, athough many majority text translations are in the works currently. Some better quality than others.

there are numerous basic errors in the KJV, which most don't want to mention. But the NKJV fixes them for the most part. But the NKJV may have taken too much liberty in some instances, and needs to be updated badly.

but regardless we need to stray from NASB, NIV, and ESV (uugg)....because they are from questionable manuscripts. Encouraging a questionable manuscript is not a good thing.

Codex Vaticanus contains 7,579 changes from Textus Receptus

Codex sinaiticus has half leaves missing because they were burning them to keep warm when they found them. It has 9000 changes from Textus receptus.

The above two differ in the gospels over 3000 times with each other.

The condition of the manuscripts are beautiful compared to others of this age and. Makes them highly suspicious.

The evidence of the papyrus manuacripts of the 20th century were not available for the Greek text of Westcott and hort. The papyri evidence is much older than these two, and by and large supports the textus receptus.

NIV uses an alternate type of translation process called dynamic equivalent. So it is not a literal translation on purpose and changes thousand of times from a liter translation.


more on the alleged sinaiticus forgery here:
http://kjvonly2.blogspot.com/2011/09/sinaiticus-may-really-be-forgery-after.html

here is an analysis on the priority of the byzantine over the modern texts source (alexandrian):
The Byzantine Priority Hypothesis


and some other translations that are not archaic like the KJV but still based on majority text: There is a huge need for a fully updated majority text tradition translation, many many people have undergone this task, and here are some of them. Some are better than others: And again I believe the NKJV is also a good text, but it needs an updated revision as well. Maybe undo some of the unnecessary changes.
(some links criticize some majority text translations, others support them, this is my list of links, they are unsorted and for your analysis and feedback as you have time)

http://www.byztxt.com/download/index.html
Introduction to Robinson & Pierpont
http://evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogspot.com/2006/01/review-of-robinson-and-pierpont.html

http://www.byztxt.com/download/index.html
http://solascriptura-tt.org/Bibliol...extMovingAwayFromPreservedScripture-Cloud.htm
https://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/te...ament_greek/text/wallace-majoritytext-gtj.pdf
https://bible.org/article/some-second-thoughts-majority-text
http://evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogspot.com/2006/03/interview-with-dan-wallace.html
http://www.livingwater.org/about-the-logos-21-translation.html
https://bible.org/article/majority-text-and-original-text-are-they-identical#_ftnref26
http://majoritytext.com/letter.html
http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/gtj/04-1_119.pdf
http://www.skypoint.com/members/waltzmn/RobPier.html
http://evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogspot.com/2006/01/review-of-robinson-and-pierpont.html

 

[Dave G.]

What ever translation one uses, that shouldn't be the end all anyway. Do as you have shown and check in a concordance like Strongs against original language.
That said, my main read is NKJV, I have 5 of those. For an expanded view in English I sometime use an Amplified.

 

[Meester-Chung]

I prefer to use translations which are from the textus receptus. for the old testament, I used the English translation of the Septuagint which is closer to the Hebrew original

 

[YeshuaFan]

my number 1 is NKJV, second is ESV. but I like the byzantine text type, byzantine family, type manuscripts.

so the NKJV/KJV, and 1 or two others are from these manuscripts, athough many majority text translations are in the works currently. Some better quality than others.

there are numerous basic errors in the KJV, which most don't want to mention. But the NKJV fixes them for the most part. But the NKJV may have taken too much liberty in some instances, and needs to be updated badly.

but regardless we need to stray from NASB, NIV, and ESV (uugg)....because they are from questionable manuscripts. Encouraging a questionable manuscript is not a good thing.

I still use the ESV as a greek tool to see how some words are translated, because it is a quite excellent word for word translation, it's just that it is based on a questionable alexandrian text like the sinaiticus. But I thought I would mention that ESV does have errors, like in this instance it translated genesis 3:16 with a theological twist to it.

I agree that the context does state that woman was desiring mans role, as lead. As most expository commentaries suggest, But the text itself says more of what the NKJV does, literally the word means a desire "toward" so "to" is real close. It's important with translations to have one that does not put theological viewpoints into the text, and simply translates what was in greek and hebrew in a literal fashion. But regarding the manuscript behind the ESV, there is some questions as to it's legitimacy.


more on the alleged sinaiticus forgery here:
http://kjvonly2.blogspot.com/2011/09/sinaiticus-may-really-be-forgery-after.html

here is an analysis on the priority of the byzantine over the modern texts source (alexandrian):
The Byzantine Priority Hypothesis


and some other translations that are not archaic like the KJV but still based on majority text: There is a huge need for a fully updated majority text tradition translation, many many people have undergone this task, and here are some of them. Some are better than others: And again I believe the NKJV is also a good text, but it needs an updated revision as well. Maybe undo some of the unnecessary changes.
(some links criticize some majority text translations, others support them, this is my list of links, they are unsorted and for your analysis and feedback as you have time)

http://www.byztxt.com/download/index.html
http://www.skypoint.com/members/waltzmn/RobPier.html
http://evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogspot.com/2006/01/review-of-robinson-and-pierpont.html

http://www.byztxt.com/download/index.html
http://solascriptura-tt.org/Bibliol...extMovingAwayFromPreservedScripture-Cloud.htm
https://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/te...ament_greek/text/wallace-majoritytext-gtj.pdf
https://bible.org/article/some-second-thoughts-majority-text
http://evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogspot.com/2006/03/interview-with-dan-wallace.html
http://www.livingwater.org/about-the-logos-21-translation.html
https://bible.org/article/majority-text-and-original-text-are-they-identical#_ftnref26
http://majoritytext.com/letter.html
http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/gtj/04-1_119.pdf
http://www.skypoint.com/members/waltzmn/RobPier.html
http://evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogspot.com/2006/01/review-of-robinson-and-pierpont.html

I would say that any English translation regardless which Greek text it was based upon would be the very word of the Lord to us for today.My preference would be the Nas, but do also use Nkjv/Esv/1984 Niv/CSB, but would make sure that the heretical ones like used by JW and the Mormons NOT be included!
I would not recommend the 2011 Niv revision, due to its gender inclusive renderings...

 

[Oldmantook]

Berean Literal Bible. It does a better job of translating the Greek verb tenses which most English versions do a poor job of.

 

[Residential Bob]

The more recent the translation, the better. Except, of course, for paraphrased versions, such as the Living Bible, and versions with an agenda, such as the Scofield Version.

Textual variants plagued the copies of Scriptures early on, but as we've become more familiar with historical and cultural context and have discovered more ancient manuscripts, we've got not further from the original meaning, but closer.

 

[Just Another User]

The NASB is probably the most accurate but quite frankly; if you're reading the Bible constantly and growing in Christ; who cares what translation it is?

 

[Pethesedzao]

my number 1 is NKJV, second is ESV. but I like the byzantine text type, byzantine family, type manuscripts.

so the NKJV/KJV, and 1 or two others are from these manuscripts, athough many majority text translations are in the works currently. Some better quality than others.

there are numerous basic errors in the KJV, which most don't want to mention. But the NKJV fixes them for the most part. But the NKJV may have taken too much liberty in some instances, and needs to be updated badly.

but regardless we need to stray from NASB, NIV, and ESV (uugg)....because they are from questionable manuscripts. Encouraging a questionable manuscript is not a good thing.

I still use the ESV as a greek tool to see how some words are translated, because it is a quite excellent word for word translation, it's just that it is based on a questionable alexandrian text like the sinaiticus. But I thought I would mention that ESV does have errors, like in this instance it translated genesis 3:16 with a theological twist to it.

I agree that the context does state that woman was desiring mans role, as lead. As most expository commentaries suggest, But the text itself says more of what the NKJV does, literally the word means a desire "toward" so "to" is real close. It's important with translations to have one that does not put theological viewpoints into the text, and simply translates what was in greek and hebrew in a literal fashion. But regarding the manuscript behind the ESV, there is some questions as to it's legitimacy.


more on the alleged sinaiticus forgery here:
http://kjvonly2.blogspot.com/2011/09/sinaiticus-may-really-be-forgery-after.html

here is an analysis on the priority of the byzantine over the modern texts source (alexandrian):
The Byzantine Priority Hypothesis


and some other translations that are not archaic like the KJV but still based on majority text: There is a huge need for a fully updated majority text tradition translation, many many people have undergone this task, and here are some of them. Some are better than others: And again I believe the NKJV is also a good text, but it needs an updated revision as well. Maybe undo some of the unnecessary changes.
(some links criticize some majority text translations, others support them, this is my list of links, they are unsorted and for your analysis and feedback as you have time)

http://www.byztxt.com/download/index.html
http://www.skypoint.com/members/waltzmn/RobPier.html
http://evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogspot.com/2006/01/review-of-robinson-and-pierpont.html

http://www.byztxt.com/download/index.html
http://solascriptura-tt.org/Bibliol...extMovingAwayFromPreservedScripture-Cloud.htm
https://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/te...ament_greek/text/wallace-majoritytext-gtj.pdf
https://bible.org/article/some-second-thoughts-majority-text
http://evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogspot.com/2006/03/interview-with-dan-wallace.html
http://www.livingwater.org/about-the-logos-21-translation.html
https://bible.org/article/majority-text-and-original-text-are-they-identical#_ftnref26
http://majoritytext.com/letter.html
http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/gtj/04-1_119.pdf
http://www.skypoint.com/members/waltzmn/RobPier.html
http://evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogspot.com/2006/01/review-of-robinson-and-pierpont.html

the KJV is the most accurate in comparison to all the other versions. the nkjv has twisted a lot of the original text and added some of its own meanings...

 

[Concord1968]

 

[Dave-W]

but regardless we need to stray from NASB, NIV, and ESV (uugg)....because they are from questionable manuscripts. Encouraging a questionable manuscript is not a good thing.

I still use the ESV as a greek tool to see how some words are translated, because it is a quite excellent word for word translation, it's just that it is based on a questionable alexandrian text like the sinaiticus. But I thought I would mention that ESV does have errors, like in this instance it translated genesis 3:16 with a theological twist to it.

All main translations use the Masoretic text for all of the OT. Your “Byzantine text” et al refer To the NT Greek, not the Hebrew OT.

 

[Radagast]

but regardless we need to stray from NASB, NIV, and ESV (uugg)....because they are from questionable manuscripts. Encouraging a questionable manuscript is not a good thing.

So you say. In fact, they are from the oldest and best manuscripts.

But I thought I would mention that ESV does have errors, like in this instance it translated genesis 3:16 with a theological twist to it.

The Hebrew is ambiguous. The NLT does the same as the ESV; both have the other possible interpretation in a footnote.

more on the alleged sinaiticus forgery here:
http://kjvonly2.blogspot.com/2011/09/sinaiticus-may-really-be-forgery-after.html

Absolute nonsense!

 

[Radagast]

the KJV is the most accurate in comparison to all the other versions. the nkjv has twisted a lot of the original text and added some of its own meanings...

I hear that a lot. Always from KJVO-ers who have never actually read the Greek or the Hebrew.

 

[Concord1968]

I hear that a lot. Always from KJVO-ers who have never actually read the Greek or the Hebrew.

I guess you noticed the "sources" demeaning the Alexandrian text-type are KJV-Only cult sites?

 

[Pethesedzao]

I hear that a lot. Always from KJVO-ers who have never actually read the Greek or the Hebrew.

I am against KJV only...

 

[createdtoworship]

I would say that any English translation regardless which Greek text it was based upon would be the very word of the Lord to us for today.My preference would be the Nas, but do also use Nkjv/Esv/1984 Niv/CSB, but would make sure that the heretical ones like used by JW and the Mormons NOT be included!
I would not recommend the 2011 Niv revision, due to its gender inclusive renderings...

See the problem is that many times the recent manuscripts contradict the old manuscripts. So which one is correct? If both were God's word, than that means God's word has errors. Correct? Also it is important to note that the original manuscripts were what is considered inspired by God. Yes His hand is upon the preservation of His word to all languages, but in a less direct way and not a way that is technically "inspiration". The english versions do their best to translate, God's word into a secondary language. And that process creates errors. Usually human error of some type. Thats why some suggest that the most recent translations, such as the ESV are the most accurate. Because we have technology and such that can see errors. But the only problem is the ESV is based on a forgery, the sinaiticus.

 

[createdtoworship]

the KJV is the most accurate in comparison to all the other versions. the nkjv has twisted a lot of the original text and added some of its own meanings...

I use the KJV only when I am debating cults, like mormon or jehovah's witnesses and my main bible is a KJV, but I read NKJV in my Bible study. KJV onlyists, refuse to see that there are many errors in KJV. There are errors in every translation, but the KJV had an abundance of small errors, like grammatical type errors, sometimes it would be a word here and a word there. The NKJV fixes alot of them. But yes, I used to love the KJV, and I still read it. But it does have errors. It's important to at least acknowlege that part. See God's word is not an english translation, the inspired word of God is actually the hebrew and greek texts passed down. It's important to have a literal english version that translates correctly into english. The first try, KJV was a great work. and unsurpased in quality for many many centuries, but now that we have technology it is easy to see where the errors are on our english side, and correct them.

 

[robycop3]

Given that many Hebrew, Aramaic, & Koine Greek words have multiple English meanings, I believe it's important to study several English Bible translations, both old & new. My fave is the NKJV, followed closely by the NASV. But I STUDY older translations, from Wycliffe's onward, for a more-eclectic overview of the whole body of Scripture.

 

[dstamps]

Can Man change the meaning of Scripture to better fit what Man wants it to say? Yes!
Compare the NIV Matthew 27:57 and Hebrews 11:1 with NKJV and NASB. The time of day was changed in Matthew 27:57, and Faith was weakened in Hebrews 11:1 by making what has 'substance' insubstantial. The NASB actually weakens it some.

Does it matter? Probably not. If anyone is seeking GOD properly, HE will show them the path they must follow. Besides much of the true Scripture message is wrapped in allegory and symbolism because it is impossible to use form to paint a picture of spiritual things directly. In Genesis 1, GOD paints a picture of how Man is in HIS Image while appearing to describe the order of physical creation.

 

[Pethesedzao]

See the problem is that many times the recent manuscripts contradict the old manuscripts. So which one is correct? If both were God's word, than that means God's word has errors. Correct? Also it is important to note that the original manuscripts were what is considered inspired by God. Yes His hand is upon the preservation of His word to all languages, but in a less direct way and not a way that is technically "inspiration". The english versions do their best to translate, God's word into a secondary language. And that process creates errors. Usually human error of some type. Thats why some suggest that the most recent translations, such as the ESV are the most accurate. Because we have technology and such that can see errors. But the only problem is the ESV is based on a forgery, the sinaiticus.

Regarding gender there is no male or female, we are all sons of God. The nkjv has altered some of the original meaning in the KJV

 

[JackRT]

The King James Version of the New Testament was based upon a Greek text (the Textus Receptus) that was marred by mistakes, containing the accumulated errors of fourteen centuries of manuscript copying. It was essentially the Greek text of the New Testament as edited by Beza, 1589, who closely followed that published by Erasmus, 1516-1535, which was based upon a few medieval manuscripts. The earliest and best of the eight manuscripts which Erasmus consulted was from the tenth century, and yet he made the least use of it because it differed most from the commonly received text; Beza had access to two manuscripts of great value, dating from the fifth and sixth centuries, but he made very little use of them because they differed from the text published by Erasmus. We now possess many more ancient manuscripts (about 9000 compared to just 10) of the New Testament, and thanks to another 400 years of biblical scholarship, are far better equipped to seek to recover the original wording of the Greek text. Much as we might love the KJV and the majesty of it’s Jacobean English, modern translations are more accurate.