KING JAMES VERSION BIBLE VS. MODERN ENGLISH BIBLES

[JohnOs]

I have read the KJV about ten times. I also went through the NIV and NKJV. What I believe is most are well and blessed. Things to note in difference between modern English like niv and nkjv and kjv is 1. Words are simpler or modern ex: it came to pass KJV so it was nkjv 2. Sentence structure is changed around to modern English structure (which is acceptable since NT Greek structure differs a little from both). I say keep KJV around. Because it does have value as a more complete Bible due to the verses missing in modern versions.

 

[SovereignGrace]

I have read the KJV about ten times. I also went through the NIV and NKJV. What I believe is most are well and blessed. Things to note in difference between modern English like niv and nkjv and kjv is 1. Words are simpler or modern ex: it came to pass KJV so it was nkjv 2. Sentence structure is changed around to modern English structure (which is acceptable since NT Greek structure differs a little from both). I say keep KJV around. Because it does have value as a more complete Bible due to the verses missing in modern versions.

I keep the KJV around because it makes for a good paperweight.

 

[JohnOs]

I keep the KJV around because it makes for a good paperweight.

I think you are reading a Mormon reprint fake. Those are not in the KJV 1611

 

[SovereignGrace]

I think you are reading a Mormon reprint fake. Those are not in the KJV 1611

FYI, I mainly read the NIV and NASB. The only times I read the KJV is to prep my sermon as I have a monthly appointment at a Separate Baptist church that uses only the KJV. If not for that, I would probably NEVER read that version of God's word.

 

[JohnOs]

FYI, I mainly read the NIV and NASB. The only times I read the KJV is to prep my sermon as I have a monthly appointment at a Separate Baptist church that uses only the KJV. If not for that, I would probably NEVER read that version of God's word.

KJV used the original Greek, whereas most modern versions use wescott and hort which was altered and simplifed NTGreek. Example: agape W&H ;original agapegos. The difference is agape is gofind and agapegos is gofindspirit or "arightspirit", love . W&H simply took out word parts and lines from the NT Greek and originally their Bible was only intended to be used as a Greek text for a college student textbook to learn moderate Greek easier. The problem is KJV is still 1611 British English. The best answer was the King James Easy Reader kjver which went back to original text more and used modern English.

 

[SovereignGrace]

KJV used the original Greek, whereas most modern versions use wescott and hort which was altered and simplifed NTGreek. Example: agape W&H ;original agapegos. The difference is agape is gofind and agapegos is gofindspirit or "arightspirit", love . W&H simply took out word parts and lines from the NT Greek and originally their Bible was only intended to be used as a Greek text for a college student textbook to learn moderate Greek easier. The problem is KJV is still 1611 British English. The best answer was the King James Easy Reader kjver which went back to original text more and used modern English.

Show me, with proof, W&H altered the Greek.

 

[JohnOs]

Show me, with proof, W&H altered the Greek.

I'm not buying you a westcott and hort Bible. So change your attitude and Google it.

 

[trofimus]

KJV used the original Greek, whereas most modern versions use wescott and hort which was altered and simplifed NTGreek. Example: agape W&H ;original agapegos. The difference is agape is gofind and agapegos is gofindspirit or "arightspirit", love . W&H simply took out word parts and lines from the NT Greek and originally their Bible was only intended to be used as a Greek text for a college student textbook to learn moderate Greek easier. The problem is KJV is still 1611 British English. The best answer was the King James Easy Reader kjver which went back to original text more and used modern English.

a) Erasmus had only several Greek manuscripts of a late date.

b) We have about 6,000 today and some are really, really ancient.

----

The KJV used Erasmus´s critical Greek compilation (several editions) based on a)

Bibles today use Nestle Aland´ critical Greek compilation (the most updated ones) based on b)

 

[JohnOs]

a) Erasmus had only several Greek manuscripts of a late date.

b) We have about 6,000 today and some are really, really ancient.

----

The KJV used Erasmus´s critical Greek compilation (several editions) based on a)

Bibles today use Nestle Aland´ critical Greek compilation (the most updated ones) based on b)

That's incorrect. We have them, yes. They are used, no. W&H are used and compared to the KJV. This created the NIV and nkjv Some of b) was used for the kjer. In fact kjer is only modern that used Nestle compared to KJV manuscripts.

 

[trofimus]

That's incorrect. We have them, yes. They are used, no. W&H are used and compared to the KJV. This created the NIV and nkjv Some of b) was used for the kjer. In fact kjer is only modern that used Nestle compared to KJV manuscripts.

Nestle Aland is what is used. W&H is not. KJV is not being compared.

New International Version
Textual basis
NT: Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament.
OT: Biblia Hebraica Masoretic Hebrew Text, Dead Sea Scrolls, Samaritan Pentateuch, Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion, Latin Vulgate, Syriac Peshitta, Aramaic Targums, for Psalms Juxta Hebraica of Jerome.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_International_Version

 

[JohnOs]

Nestle Aland is what is used. W&H is not. KJV is not being compared.

New International Version
Textual basis
NT: Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament.
OT: Biblia Hebraica Masoretic Hebrew Text, Dead Sea Scrolls, Samaritan Pentateuch, Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion, Latin Vulgate, Syriac Peshitta, Aramaic Targums, for Psalms Juxta Hebraica of Jerome.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_International_Version

Then check all the study help Greek. Words like agape instead of agapegos, apostalu intead of apastalunos, they used w&h

 

[trofimus]

KJV is not being compared.

To be precise, some names etc are being compared to the KJV to preserve backward compatibility with lexicons and other tools that were made for the KJV.

But textual choices are not.

 

[trofimus]

Then check all the study help Greek. Words like agape instead of agapegos, apostalu intead of apastalunos, they used w&h

I do not understand what you are saying, what "all the study help Greek" is.

Give us a specific verse so that we can see what you are talking about.

 

[KJV1611]

No, but he is saying there are more than one Christ. That's utter heresy and is not a Christian belief/thought.

Which is part is unchristian - Christ indwells the believer or we all have an image of Christ in our minds?

 

[trofimus]

Along with the printing of the NIV was the Greek used in study Bibles. Sidenotes such as agape or apastalunos. Obvious text from w&h and the NIV flows like moderate text w&h is it's simplicity. For example pornea is originally porneacus. NIV "sexual immorality" original "continual sexual immoralities" or profanities. KJV "fornication" by the way I originally stated I love KJV aswell as new version s.

Any specific verse and what you think is wrong there?

 

[JohnOs]

Any specific verse and what you think is wrong there?

I love NIV the same as westcott and hort original intent in Greek you can easily learn some Bible. But for more in-depth I study the NT Greek. I also usually study more than one version to be familiar with them. I like literal and even simple. I mostly hate paraphase because actually meaning and doctrine are changed by paraphase to the translators beliefs. Examples NLT, Message

 

[trofimus]

I love NIV the same as westcott and hort original intent in Greek you can easily learn some Bible. But for more in-depth I study the NT Greek. I also usually study more than one version to be familiar with them. I like literal and even simple. I mostly hate paraphase because actually meaning and doctrine are changed by paraphase to the translators beliefs. Examples NLT, Message

OK, good, love it, nothing wrong on that.

But you said that something is wrong, so it would be good if you can post specific verse and what specifically is wrong there, in your opinion.

 

[KJV1611]

THAT IS A SPIRIT OF CONFUSION.

Maybe you could ellaborate on what part is confusing you - The Christ in your heart is not the Christ in your head why does this confuse you?

 

[JohnOs]

OK, good, love it, nothing wrong on that.

But you said that something is wrong, so it would be good if you can post specific verse and what specifically is wrong there, in your opinion.

I actually haven't said against or that anything's wrong. Was just pointing out that KJV is still a valuable asset with the modern versions. Aswell the Kjver.

 

[graceNpeace]

KJV used the original Greek, ....

I think you are awfully confused here!
Do you realise that the textus receptus, compiled by Erasmus, on which the KJV translators base their NT translation had only six (6) incomplete Greek manuscripts (MSS). And where there was overlap in the content no manuscript was the same. In addition no MSS was earlier that the 10th century.
In creating this Greek text Erasmus borrowed liberally from the Latin Vulgate (the Bible used by the RCC) and so large parts of the textus receptus are actually translations from a LATIN Bible..., never mind six very incomplete and inconsistent Greek MSS!

Doesn't sound very "original" to me...

This completely contradicts any claim that the "KJV used the original Greek"!
This is a laughable claim devoid of any easily verifiable fact.
KJVOnly advocates thrive only on ignorance.