KING JAMES VERSION BIBLE VS. MODERN ENGLISH BIBLES
- Thread starter KingJamesVersionBibleOnly
- Start date
-
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.
Actually, byzantine reading is frequently shorter than the alexandrian one.
I agree that the text of byzantine family is much more readable, better, clearer grammar, syntax, sentences. When I switch from Robinson-piepont to UBS, I have much more trouble with smooth reading.
It certainly can be a result of some editorial work.
----
What about the view that original autographs had errors (at least grammatical), so it needed to be corrected by (byzantine) scribes later?
I agree that the text of byzantine family is much more readable, better, clearer grammar, syntax, sentences. When I switch from Robinson-piepont to UBS, I have much more trouble with smooth reading.
It certainly can be a result of some editorial work.
----
What about the view that original autographs had errors (at least grammatical), so it needed to be corrected by (byzantine) scribes later?
There seem to be at least two issues getting mixed together here...
There certainly were spurious gospels around in the early centuries. Some of these we are aware of now... the gospel of Thomas, for example. I think we need to make a category distinction between manuscripts of gospels accepted as canon, and manuscripts of non-canonical texts. Let's focus on the former category.
The game of "Telephone" is a good analogy of the work of copyists. The message begins "pure" but through simple errors it gets garbled. Careful examination of manuscripts reveals what was most likely the original... this is the work of textual criticism (the legitimate kind). In broadly general terms, what is closer in time is also likely closer in accuracy/preservation because there are likely fewer errors. That is not a strict rule though, and it is foolhardy to be dogmatic either way.
Generally, I think it is unnecessary and even slanderous to attribute ill intent to copyists and scholars of early centuries. Sure, there were people like Origen who were eventually cast as heretics. That does not make their work automatically invalid! It just means that it needs extra examination and gets held lightly against the work of orthodox writers.
There certainly were spurious gospels around in the early centuries. Some of these we are aware of now... the gospel of Thomas, for example. I think we need to make a category distinction between manuscripts of gospels accepted as canon, and manuscripts of non-canonical texts. Let's focus on the former category.
The game of "Telephone" is a good analogy of the work of copyists. The message begins "pure" but through simple errors it gets garbled. Careful examination of manuscripts reveals what was most likely the original... this is the work of textual criticism (the legitimate kind). In broadly general terms, what is closer in time is also likely closer in accuracy/preservation because there are likely fewer errors. That is not a strict rule though, and it is foolhardy to be dogmatic either way.
Generally, I think it is unnecessary and even slanderous to attribute ill intent to copyists and scholars of early centuries. Sure, there were people like Origen who were eventually cast as heretics. That does not make their work automatically invalid! It just means that it needs extra examination and gets held lightly against the work of orthodox writers.
Many words have multiple meanings or shades of meaning. It is a basic principle of Bible interpretation that Scripture does NOT contradict Scripture. When there is an apparent contradiction, it is the duty of the translator/ interpreter to find a reading consistent with common usage that resolves the conflict. I believe that there will ALWAYS be one.
Understandable.
Just showing that the scholars logic is bent towards claiming that the Alexandrian texts are superior because they are old. When logic suggests large well kept older texts survived by being unused and kept in safe in monasteries.
Put yourself back in the early days.
Your local church has need of the written word of God.
Copies are expensive because of the difficult copying labor and the need for a standard copy being available.
And the great interest and desire for God’s word as churches spread.
No one will accept corrupt copies.
And everyone would be comparing with others if they suspected anything creeping in.
Lo and behold, the scholars today claim ecclesiastical texts better than the copies in the local churches.
I don’t think it’s coincidence.
I think the lofty rise of high church officials in the decaying empire motivated a plot to save Rome.
And the problem with the scriptures is the accountability it forces on all men high or low, rich or poor.
To get power over the common man copies of the scriptures had to be curtailed to prevent comparison of the word of God with the manner of religion the ecclesiastics were promoting.
It was Satan that brought on the dark ages without a common man’s New Testament read freely in widespread free churches.
And where did the reformation come from?
New Testaments flooding into the darkness of Europe from parts unknown. All greatly in agreement as is provable today.
Just showing that the scholars logic is bent towards claiming that the Alexandrian texts are superior because they are old. When logic suggests large well kept older texts survived by being unused and kept in safe in monasteries.
Put yourself back in the early days.
Your local church has need of the written word of God.
Copies are expensive because of the difficult copying labor and the need for a standard copy being available.
And the great interest and desire for God’s word as churches spread.
No one will accept corrupt copies.
And everyone would be comparing with others if they suspected anything creeping in.
Lo and behold, the scholars today claim ecclesiastical texts better than the copies in the local churches.
I don’t think it’s coincidence.
I think the lofty rise of high church officials in the decaying empire motivated a plot to save Rome.
And the problem with the scriptures is the accountability it forces on all men high or low, rich or poor.
To get power over the common man copies of the scriptures had to be curtailed to prevent comparison of the word of God with the manner of religion the ecclesiastics were promoting.
It was Satan that brought on the dark ages without a common man’s New Testament read freely in widespread free churches.
And where did the reformation come from?
New Testaments flooding into the darkness of Europe from parts unknown. All greatly in agreement as is provable today.
1. Middle East and northern Africa got conquered by Islam. While estern roman empire, so called Byzantium, lasted 1000 years more.
Thats why there are more byzantine NT manuscripts. The production of them in other areas was simply stopped by islam.
2. In the first centuries, there were no professional scribes in Church, Church was under persecution. But Byzantine empire had professional scribes, later.
Thats why older Greek manuscripts have more laymen´s errors while byzantine ones look so good.
3. Climate. Dry and hot climate in Northern Afrika and Middle East preserves pergamens and papyrus much longer than wet or cold climate.
---
These are just facts explaining why things are how they, why there is the ratio of alexandrian:byzantine type, why are alexandrian texts older and why alexandrian texts are not of such external quality as eastern ones.
Now, we can take views about which one of them is "superior" in internal readings and why. But, let us remember, that the KJVO guy has problems with both, TR is not a good representative of Byzantine majority text and some of its readings are unique. So if somebody wants a TR superiority, he must come with something else.
Thats why there are more byzantine NT manuscripts. The production of them in other areas was simply stopped by islam.
2. In the first centuries, there were no professional scribes in Church, Church was under persecution. But Byzantine empire had professional scribes, later.
Thats why older Greek manuscripts have more laymen´s errors while byzantine ones look so good.
3. Climate. Dry and hot climate in Northern Afrika and Middle East preserves pergamens and papyrus much longer than wet or cold climate.
---
These are just facts explaining why things are how they, why there is the ratio of alexandrian:byzantine type, why are alexandrian texts older and why alexandrian texts are not of such external quality as eastern ones.
Now, we can take views about which one of them is "superior" in internal readings and why. But, let us remember, that the KJVO guy has problems with both, TR is not a good representative of Byzantine majority text and some of its readings are unique. So if somebody wants a TR superiority, he must come with something else.
Last edited:
Do I think the dropping off of a sigma by accident, or adding "the Lord" to Jesus conflating it was gnosticism? Of course not! In fact, probably the longer ending of Mark is the only text I can think of that actually creates doctrine that is not there, and not even it is gnostic.
So, where are you finding gnosticism in modern Bibles, anyway? I've read most modern Bibles, the NASB 25 times, HCSB 4 times, NIV 3 times, ESV 8 times, etc, etc, I've even read the NLT (found some things that were just a bit too far from the other Bibles) and most of the Message (way too far, but still some interesting insight, and certainly not gnostic.)
The only time I find gnosticism is when people claim that we are gods, etc, (Word Faith)and they always quote the KJV. Now, I'm not blaming the KJV, but the fact is, being more difficult to understand, heresies are going to arise because the words are not in understandable modern English. In fact, I think certain cults (JWs,and Mormans) actually rely on the fact that the KJV is not accessible to modern people, and use it to try and support their cultic ideas. And seriously, the Mormons directly say there are no contradictions between the KJV and the book of Mormon. It took me 2 pages to find 4 contradictions, as a young Christian, and I had only read the Bible twice at that point.!
Further, what is your source for
I've read so many versions and compared them to the Greek. I actually was assigned the KJV to compare to the Hebrew, when I took Hebrew. In no versions have I ever seen anyone "changing the Word of God" to fit their needs. Let alone the early versions being changed to fit gnosticism. Gnosticism was a heresy of the 2nd century, and in fact, was not that wide spread, tending only to certain educated and elite groups. I know I have read the myth of the Alexandrian school being gnostic, advanced by the KJV Onlyists. But, no one uses just one manuscript, there are 5 complete and distanced schools of Bible manuscripts - the Byzantine, the Western (Spain) Caesarian (Rome) Alexandrian; Egyptian and something called Eclectic.
Category I - Alexandrian
This category includes the earliest manuscripts. Some 4th century and earlier Papyri and uncials are in this category, as are manuscripts of the Alexandrian text-type.The manuscripts are important when considering textual problems and are considered by many scholars to be a good representation of the autography, due to their easy dating.
Category II - Egyptian
The manuscripts this category are similar to category I manuscripts and are important in textual consideration of the autograph. However, the texts usually contain some alien influences, such as those found in Byzantine text-type. (NB ALIEN meaning the Byzantine influences are the issue!)
Category III - Eclectic
The manuscripts in category III are important when discussing the history of the textual traditions and to a lesser degree for establishing the original text. The manuscripts usually contain independent readings,and have a distinctive character. Manuscripts of this category usually present mixed or eclectic text-type.
Category IV - Western
Category I contains the few manuscripts that follow the text of the Codex Bezae (D).These texts are of the Western Text type.
Category V - Byzantine
Byzantine an mostly Byzantine texts fall under this category.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categories_of_New_Testament_manuscripts
So, a variety of texts from a variety of places that are widely separated. Not likely the gnostics changed all those texts. They just weren't that big an influence on the church, and the sect was already in decline by the second century, plus the church (although it probably started there, influenced by Jewish and Greco-Roman mystery religions), but were found all over the Roman empire. It is just as likely the Byzantine texts were influenced by the gnostics as any other family, but in fact, I don't see any evidence of gnosticism in any of the Biblical manuscripts. I believe this is just another KJV Only straw man, created for the naive!
Plus, not capitalizing certain words in the NIV, for example, referring to the deity of Christ, does not point to gnosticism. In fact, the real difference in the gnostics didn't lie in the deity of Christ, but the opposite. They did think Christ was God but they were Docetists, believing Jesus did not actually die, because he had never been a man. So, over realizing of the deity of Christ - Gnostics thought matter was evil, and therefore, Jesus would never have had a real body. The exact opposite of the Arians, who thought that Jesus was only a man, and not God.
Perhaps you could give specific examples of where this happens in modern texts, and then we could compare to the Greek/Hebrew, and some modern versions. Methinks perhaps you have fallen for a straw man, here.
So, where are you finding gnosticism in modern Bibles, anyway? I've read most modern Bibles, the NASB 25 times, HCSB 4 times, NIV 3 times, ESV 8 times, etc, etc, I've even read the NLT (found some things that were just a bit too far from the other Bibles) and most of the Message (way too far, but still some interesting insight, and certainly not gnostic.)
The only time I find gnosticism is when people claim that we are gods, etc, (Word Faith)and they always quote the KJV. Now, I'm not blaming the KJV, but the fact is, being more difficult to understand, heresies are going to arise because the words are not in understandable modern English. In fact, I think certain cults (JWs,and Mormans) actually rely on the fact that the KJV is not accessible to modern people, and use it to try and support their cultic ideas. And seriously, the Mormons directly say there are no contradictions between the KJV and the book of Mormon. It took me 2 pages to find 4 contradictions, as a young Christian, and I had only read the Bible twice at that point.!
Further, what is your source for
I've read so many versions and compared them to the Greek. I actually was assigned the KJV to compare to the Hebrew, when I took Hebrew. In no versions have I ever seen anyone "changing the Word of God" to fit their needs. Let alone the early versions being changed to fit gnosticism. Gnosticism was a heresy of the 2nd century, and in fact, was not that wide spread, tending only to certain educated and elite groups. I know I have read the myth of the Alexandrian school being gnostic, advanced by the KJV Onlyists. But, no one uses just one manuscript, there are 5 complete and distanced schools of Bible manuscripts - the Byzantine, the Western (Spain) Caesarian (Rome) Alexandrian; Egyptian and something called Eclectic.
Category I - Alexandrian
This category includes the earliest manuscripts. Some 4th century and earlier Papyri and uncials are in this category, as are manuscripts of the Alexandrian text-type.The manuscripts are important when considering textual problems and are considered by many scholars to be a good representation of the autography, due to their easy dating.
Category II - Egyptian
The manuscripts this category are similar to category I manuscripts and are important in textual consideration of the autograph. However, the texts usually contain some alien influences, such as those found in Byzantine text-type. (NB ALIEN meaning the Byzantine influences are the issue!)
Category III - Eclectic
The manuscripts in category III are important when discussing the history of the textual traditions and to a lesser degree for establishing the original text. The manuscripts usually contain independent readings,and have a distinctive character. Manuscripts of this category usually present mixed or eclectic text-type.
Category IV - Western
Category I contains the few manuscripts that follow the text of the Codex Bezae (D).These texts are of the Western Text type.
Category V - Byzantine
Byzantine an mostly Byzantine texts fall under this category.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categories_of_New_Testament_manuscripts
So, a variety of texts from a variety of places that are widely separated. Not likely the gnostics changed all those texts. They just weren't that big an influence on the church, and the sect was already in decline by the second century, plus the church (although it probably started there, influenced by Jewish and Greco-Roman mystery religions), but were found all over the Roman empire. It is just as likely the Byzantine texts were influenced by the gnostics as any other family, but in fact, I don't see any evidence of gnosticism in any of the Biblical manuscripts. I believe this is just another KJV Only straw man, created for the naive!
Plus, not capitalizing certain words in the NIV, for example, referring to the deity of Christ, does not point to gnosticism. In fact, the real difference in the gnostics didn't lie in the deity of Christ, but the opposite. They did think Christ was God but they were Docetists, believing Jesus did not actually die, because he had never been a man. So, over realizing of the deity of Christ - Gnostics thought matter was evil, and therefore, Jesus would never have had a real body. The exact opposite of the Arians, who thought that Jesus was only a man, and not God.
Perhaps you could give specific examples of where this happens in modern texts, and then we could compare to the Greek/Hebrew, and some modern versions. Methinks perhaps you have fallen for a straw man, here.
The Alexandrian Egyptian manuscripts are the corrupt texts underlying the invented texts of Wescott and Hort.
You still don’t get the truth.
The text of the Authorized came out of the King James translation committees.
It didn’t exist until God brought all the scriptures together.
Its the Authorized Version text that is the holy scriptures in God’s completed book form.
You still don’t get the truth.
The text of the Authorized came out of the King James translation committees.
It didn’t exist until God brought all the scriptures together.
Its the Authorized Version text that is the holy scriptures in God’s completed book form.
No human being [except Jesus during his earthly ministry] is or was infalible
Dictionaries and lexicons are the tools we use to ensure that we are using words properly.
Lexicographers who work on dictionaries work in teams usually of 5 to virtually ensure the least possibility of human error.
Beyond that, lexicons and dictionaries gain reputations over time. Among available English/Greek lexicons Arndt & Gingrich, and Thayer are regarded as the most reliable. Among commentators on individual words Robinson and Kittel are among the most respected but this is getting into an area in which I am relatively uninformed.
Dictionaries and lexicons are the tools we use to ensure that we are using words properly.
Lexicographers who work on dictionaries work in teams usually of 5 to virtually ensure the least possibility of human error.
Beyond that, lexicons and dictionaries gain reputations over time. Among available English/Greek lexicons Arndt & Gingrich, and Thayer are regarded as the most reliable. Among commentators on individual words Robinson and Kittel are among the most respected but this is getting into an area in which I am relatively uninformed.
First I refer to the Authorized Version above.
The word “declaration” refers to Luke’s gospel as both a legal testament and a proclamation.
The phrase ‘even as they delivered them unto us’ means that the things which are most surely believed among us, were things delivered to the group ‘us.’
In the context of a declaration; the phrase ‘even as they delivered them unto us’ refers to testimonies provided by witnesses having been given to a council of, eyewitnesses and ministers of the word of God, that received those testimonies “even as” they were delivered to them by the witnesses, (meaning that the council recorded the testimonies of those witnesses without altering them in any way).
That is how certainty was assured.
By council I refer to them whom Luke was associated in gathering the gospel record.
The corrupt text above is proven corrupt in that it refers to things ‘fulfilled’ as being things that were delivered.
But, fulfilled things can’t be delivered because those are things done.
Witnesses deliver testimony.
Things fulfilled are not carried about.
There are other problems in the corrupt sentence.
The corruptors present the nonsense phrase “having accurately followed after all things from above” because, since they intentionally ruined the idea of the Gospel of Luke being the testimony of witnesses, the corrupters were then forced to provide some means of providing the certainty Luke aimed at. So, they claim the certainty is provided by Luke alone, based on his personal accuracy in all things from above.
But the word of one man can’t produce historical certainty.
Only the legal witness of many can.
As I said from the first. The truth comes out when you compare the English texts against the Authorized Version.
You can’t escape noticing the lies told in any language.
You say some ancient foreign text is better?
Well all you have to do is present proof in English.
But when you do then every fair minded reader can decide for themselves.
Thats why all the translation arguments aren’t formidable even if the brightest scholar came here to try and sell some corrupt texts.
Some of the readers might buy it based on the brain power displayed without taking heed, but sooner or later it comes down to what is presented in plain English.
Then all the genius translator baloney is easily disregarded.
The Lord God speaks to the common man plainly with pure words that lovers of truth recognize are of God not of the labor of translators.
You can’t escape noticing the lies told in any language.
You say some ancient foreign text is better?
Well all you have to do is present proof in English.
But when you do then every fair minded reader can decide for themselves.
Thats why all the translation arguments aren’t formidable even if the brightest scholar came here to try and sell some corrupt texts.
Some of the readers might buy it based on the brain power displayed without taking heed, but sooner or later it comes down to what is presented in plain English.
Then all the genius translator baloney is easily disregarded.
The Lord God speaks to the common man plainly with pure words that lovers of truth recognize are of God not of the labor of translators.