how do texts in KJV compare to other translations that were done before it?

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.

TheLearner

Well-known member
Jan 14, 2019
3,779
659
113
#21
Books By or About Dean Burgon


[ ] #2839 Who Was Dean John William Burgon? ($1.50)> pamphlet as above>
[ ] #DB0611 The Revision Revised by Dean Burgon ($25 + $5) hardback; 640 pages
[ ] #DB1139 The Last 12 Verses of Mark by Dean Burgon ($15+$4) perfect bound; 400 pages
[ ] #DB1159 The Traditional Text by Dean Burgon ($16 + $4) hardback; 384 pages
[ ] #DB1160 Causes of Corruption by Dean Burgon ($15 + $4) hardback; 360 pages
[ ] #DB1220 Inspiration and Interpretation, by Dean Burgon ($25+$5) hardback; 567 pages
[ ] #0804 Dean Burgon's Revision Warnings For T.R. & KJB, by Dr. Waite ($7+$3); 120 pages

http://deanburgonsociety.org/DeanBurgon/whowasdb.htm


The Revision Revised
by Mr John William Burgon | Nov 13 1871
 

TheLearner

Well-known member
Jan 14, 2019
3,779
659
113
#22
What "texts" are you talking about? Do you mean the text of the KJV as compared to the text of previous translations?
previous translations, sorry I did not answer your question before. I am not sure if I was online when you asked friend.
 
Aug 4, 2021
586
181
43
#23
how do texts in KJV compare to other translations that were done before it?
Weird, just got my bible today, it does not tell me what kind of bible it is. Has all the answers, but not the one you seek. Oh well, better luck next time. Totally readable though, so a good bible. What does the version matter to you? We need your perceived issue to adress the problem. Sometimes I think it is easier to just learn arameic and be done with it and read the original texts for people, I highly suggest you do this.
 

Nehemiah6

Senior Member
Jul 18, 2017
16,158
7,961
113
#24
I am not up to a KJV only discussion. As I understand it KJV Greek text was put together with, by a handful of manuscripts almost contemporary with whats his name. That Modern Greek critical text is compiled using thousands of manuscripts --- some only a few hundred years of the original manuscripts..
Well it is evident that you have believed all the misinformation regarding this. So here are the facts, and you can go to the writings of Burgon and Scrivener (outstanding textual scholars) to confirm what I'm posting here:

1. While Erasmus did have a handful of manuscripts to work with, he was also offered an opportunity to use the Codex Vaticanus, and he rejected it out of hand.

2. There were half a dozen scholars who worked on the Greek Received Text over a period of about 100 years. It was the Greek text of Stephanus from 1550 which was recognized by all as the Received Text -- the traditional Greek text of the Byzantine Church. During those 100 years extremely few changes were made to the text, and all the Reformers accepted this as the true text. However, the KJV translators had access to all the various editions, including the Complutensian Polyglot. Therefore the Greek text of the KJV is a modified Received Text.

3. The modern "critical Greek text" is based primarily upon Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus. Textual scholars who were committed to the truth recognized these are two of THE MOST CORRUPT texts, and their age is attributed to the fact that they were discarded by Christians because they had Gnostic corruptions.

4. From the 15th to the 19th century no one (other than a handful of rationalistic scholars) questioned the validity of the Received Text (Textus Receptus) nor the King James Bible.

5. The age of the manuscript is only one out of seven criteria which must be applied to all manuscripts. In the case of the Bible, the greatest amount of corruption took place very early in the history of the text. So later manuscripts were actually more reliable.

6. If there are 1,000 manuscripts which generally agree, and five which disagree seriously, are you supposed to rely on the minority or the majority? Especially knowing that the Gnostics had worked hard to corrupt the Bible. the Received Text faithfully represents the majority of the Greek manuscripts as well as the traditional Hebrew Masoretic Text.
 

Desdichado

Senior Member
Feb 9, 2014
8,755
805
113
#25
It is another refinement of the Bible in English. It is probably the most culturally influential translation and certainly the prettiest.
 

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
19,327
10,618
113
#26
5. The age of the manuscript is only one out of seven criteria which must be applied to all manuscripts. In the case of the Bible, the greatest amount of corruption took place very early in the history of the text. So later manuscripts were actually more reliable.
If the greatest amount of corruption took place early on, how is it that later manuscripts are not further corrupted? Your statement is simply illogical. In order for the later manuscripts to be valid, they must rest on earlier manuscripts, which no longer exist, and which had to be completed early on... when the greatest amount of corruption took place.

In other words, your argument is self-defeating.
 

Aaron56

Well-known member
Jul 12, 2021
575
266
63
#27
The KJV might be the most politically influenced version to date (of all accepted versions). It‘s origin is connected to King Henry’s desire to divorce his wife, Catherine of Aragorn, because his mistress was already knocked up. Furthermore, the translation was heavily influenced by cultural norms of the day. For example “church” was derived from kirch or kirke, which at the time was what they called the Christian temples. But the word always meant “the called out”, people, never a building. You cannot go to what you are. This was an influence from Rome and Constantine that carried over into the KJV.

For what it is it’s a decent translation but the KJV-only crowd is insufferable and ignorant of the book’s historical roots.
 
Aug 20, 2021
1,863
306
83
#28
conjecture opinions and maybe even propaganda.But we know god will lead us if we r humble.Most of us would agree on the basics such as to love god and man.
 

Blik

Senior Member
Dec 6, 2016
6,265
1,956
113
#29
The group of men who wrote this translation were truly inspired, but we need to keep in mind what the world was like and how men though in the 1600's. It was considered OK by most to murder a Jew. Luther had taught that the book of James that taught obedience was opposed to what Paul said, and Paul was most reliable. LUther had just passed away 50 years before, he was very popular.

These things need to be taken into consideration as you read this wonderful translation. As an example the word Passover is translated as Easter. The word Easter is from a heathen word that includes rabbits and eggs, Passover has always been about the blood of Christ so death passes over us and sin does not kill..
 

Dean62

New member
Sep 10, 2021
9
7
3
#30
It's my understanding that King James agreed to a new translation to consolidate his power. Reformed protestants such as Puritans and Calvinists preferred the Geneva Bible. The Geneva bible had annotations that did not reflect well on the Roman Catholic Church or Church of England. The Bible wasn't King James idea. Creating a new Bible translation that all groups would use was a good move for the King. It became a number one best seller and has continued to be to this day. I don't know that the other translations were necessarily better or worse. The King James bible is said to have borrowed heavily from Tyndale's Bible.
 

Cabrillo

Active member
Sep 6, 2021
273
133
43
#31
Well there's more to it than that. Reading comprehension, the ability to understand parables in different English? dialects over 100's of years. Stumble over words (especially Hebrew spelling with English letters.)

I prefer at least 2 translations to compare with. If I'm studying to myself or teaching Christian 101 to teens, ESL (English second language) students Or AA?BA+

I'd always have a KJV1611 + a Strongs concordance to match + NIV? NAS? BSB?

Always translations for adults. Paraphrases might be useful for something light like children's Sunday school.

Online I really like BIBLE HUB . com. It will show different verses side by side if you want a wider panorama of different translations, side by side. Bible gateway is very good too.
 

Lucy-Pevensie

Senior Member
Dec 20, 2017
5,636
3,922
113
#33
Below, some version information regarding The Wycliffe Bible compared with The KJV:

Publisher: Terence P. Noble



The "Early Version" of the "Wycliffe Bible", hand-printed about 1382, has long been criticized by Bible historians as too literal, often unintelligible, cumbersome, at best a deeply flawed 1st attempt. In fact, much of the Gospels and the Apocalypse were transferred without significant change from the "Early Version" to the "Later Version", and closely resemble the "Wycliffe-Purvey" text.

However, it is also true that when the "Early Version" is directly compared to the "Later Version", the "Early Version" is, overall, a less satisfying read. It is not so finely tuned and contains many more italicized glosses which interrupt the flow. That is why hand-written variations of the "Later Version" became the foundation upon which the King James Version (KJV) was built. But, as was stated earlier, comparing all three versions side-by-side, it becomes clear that the KJV translators rejected numerous revisions made in the "Later Version", and chose instead individual words and phraseology found in one variant or another of the "Early Version". Why did they do this? Simply put, in countless passages of the "Early Version", both the poetry of the language and fidelity to the original Greek text are superior to that found in the "Later Version".

As the words contained within the square brackets in "Wycliffe-Purvey" readily demonstrate, the KJV translators repeatedly followed the "Early Version", rather than the "Later Version", in regard to prepositions ("the" in "EV" replaced by "a" in "LV"), verb forms (e.g., "saying" and "sitting" in "EV" replaced by "said" and "sat" in "LV"), and phrase order within a verse ("a/b/c" in "EV" rearranged into "b/a/c" in "LV").

But of greatest consequence are almost one hundred significant words that appear in the "Early Version", which were later copied in the KJV, but which are not found in the equivalent "Later Version" verses. Translation is an inexact science. A single word can often be rendered several ways (as the "Wycliffe" versions themselves amply demonstrate). Therefore these linguistic agreements between the "Early Version" and the KJV are meaningful. Examples include: "unction" ("anointing" in "LV"), "allegory" ("understanding" in "LV"), "mystery" ("private" in "LV"), "liberty" ("freedom" in "LV"), "captive" ("prisoner" in "LV"), "Caesar" ("emperor" in "LV"), "prize" ("reward" in "LV"), "wise men" ("astrologers" in "LV"), "veil" ("covering" in "LV"), "faith" ("unbelief" in "LV"), "concision" ("division" in "LV"), and "sand" ("gravel" in "LV"). These words, and many others, were first introduced into the English New Testament lexicon in the 1382 "Early Version" of the "Wycliffe Bible". More than two hundred years later, they were utilized again by the KJV translators.