Favourite Bible Translations

Scribe · Dec 5, 2020

You are trying to make the argument that if one admits that the KJV is not a perfect translation that one cannot know what the words of God are. This is not true. One could read the ESV and know what the words of God are. Agreed?

Or one could say that neither the ESV or the KJV are perfect translations. Does that mean they cannot know what the words of God are? Of course not. Your argument makes no sense.

And if you want to know what the most accurate text is, learn Hebrew and Greek and read the manuscripts. Then you at least have a better argument that your reading the "inspired" text.

KJV1611 · Dec 5, 2020

Scribe said:

Is "in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one" the words of God or not?

1 John 5:7
King James Version
7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

1 John 5:7
English Standard Version
7 For there are three that testify:

UCA4J · Dec 5, 2020

Does anyone know that all translations which are not KJV are copyright ? The KJV is not copyright

KJV1611 · Dec 5, 2020

Are these comments examples of keeping the words of God or are they examples of academics guessing at what the words of God are?

(1) Matthew 17:21[edit]
KJV: Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting.

Reason: The verse closely resembles Mark 9:29, but it is lacking in Matthew in א (original handwriting), B, θ, some Italic & Syriac & Coptic & Ethiopic manuscripts. It is, however, found in this place in some Greek mss not quite so ancient – C, D, K, L – as well as some other mss of the ancient versions. It is believed to have been assimilated from Mark.[15]

(2) Matthew 18:11[edit]
KJV: For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.

Reason: This verse is lacking in א,B,L (original handwriting), θ, ƒ1, ƒ13, some old Italic & Syriac & Coptic & Georgian mss, and such ancient sources as the Apostolic Canons, Eusebius, Jerome, and others. It is found in some other sources, not quite so ancient, such as D,K,W,X, and the Latin Vulgate. It is not found in any manuscript before the 5th century.[16] According to Bruce Metzger, "There can be little doubt that the words ... are spurious here, being omitted by the earliest witnesses representing several textual types... [This verse was] manifestly borrowed by copyists from Luke 19:10."[17]

(3) Matthew 23:14[edit]
KJV: Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation.

Reason: This verse is very similar to Mark 12:40 and Luke 20:47. This verse is lacking altogether in א,B,D,L,Z,θ, ƒ1, Ethiopic, Armenian, several Italic and Syrian and Coptic mss, and the writings of several early Church Fathers. It appears before verse 13 in K,W, and several minuscules. It appears after verse 13 in ƒ13, some Italic and Syriac and Coptic mss. The fact that it is absent from the most ancient sources of multiple text types and that the sources that do contain the verse disagree about its placement, as well as the fact that it is a repetition of verses found elsewhere, show "that verse 14 is an interpolation derived from the parallel in Mark 12:40 or Luke 20:47 is clear."[17]

KJV1611 · Dec 5, 2020

1Pe 1:23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.

Believers are born again by the BIBLE. How can we be born again of incorruptible seed if our bible is corrupt?

Scribe · Dec 6, 2020

KJV1611 said:

Looking at 6-7 to get a handle on the question.
KJV
6This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth. 7For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 8And there are three that bear witness in earth, the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one

ESV
6This is he who came by water and blood—Jesus Christ; not by the water only but by the water and the blood. And the Spirit is the one who testifies, because the Spirit is the truth. 7For there are three that testify: 8the Spirit and the water and the blood; and these three agree.

To answer the question "which is true to the original text" we must examine the manuscripts. This will take doing a little research. You can't answer the question based on your emotional outrage that there is such a difference between the texts can you?

I have a foot note that says that the KJV wording is coming from the translation of the Vulgate and some late Greek manuscripts. I don't know what those late Greek manuscripts are and what level of authority they have compared to all the rest. That is one of my tasks to research.

Apparently all the other manuscripts agree with the ESV (or all the other English translations almost all agree with the ESV wording and not the KJV on this issue)

If all the scholars of all the English translations that have examined all the manuscripts in existence have concluded that the majority of manuscripts do not contain this wording that is in the Vulgate it would be strong evidence that the Vulgate is at fault wouldn't it?

The Vulgate is a Catholic Latin translation isn't it. Not the kind of manuscript that should trump all other manuscripts. Do you see where we are going with this.

If the only evidence were the Vulgate and all the other thousands of manuscripts did not contain this wording you would want to use the wording of all the other thousands of manuscripts wouldn't you?

In this case there are some other late Greek Manuscripts to consider and they need to be examined.

Now it is about this time that the fanatical mind will bail on the effort to seek out the answer and take the Lazy way out, "KJV is perfect and everybody else can just shut up" Why? They get frustrated at the idea of needing to research anything and throw up their hands and say "It can't be that hard to understand the Bible" and they would be right. No one would ever need to know the answer to this particular issue in order to understand the Bible. Most people could just keep reading it as it is in their bible and be fine.

But I despise the attitude that rejects truth because it requires research. I love truth and there is no reason to be afraid of seeking it out. If it is truth it will not harm you or cause you to lose your faith in the Word of God just because you discover that the KJV is not perfect.

Fortunately there are not enough of these kinds of issues to give anyone reason to doubt the accuracy of the translations. These issues are too few to worry about. They don't change anything. The theology of this passage is not changed by the different readings. The theology is interpreted by the whole passage.

Stumbling or getting offended over the revelation that the ESV has more authority based on manuscripts than the KJV on this particular issue is an immature attitude. It should not cause one to say "then who can know if any scripture is correct?"

We can know by looking at the original manuscripts. If one manuscript does not contain a phrase or wording that is in several older manuscripts then the older manuscripts will be used and the younger manuscripts will be ignored. If the majority of manuscripts contain wording that is not found in an older manuscript but the older manuscript is the only one with such wording it may be rejected and the Majority manuscripts used instead. The older manuscript is not automatically more authoritative based on antiquity alone.

In this particular example (1 john 5:7) if the main source of the KJV is ONLY in the Vulgate then it is a very weak case for the KJV wording to be accepted over the majority manuscripts.

Don't get me wrong. I believe I have found examples where there are differences between KJV and most all other English Translations and where I think the KJV is correct. The example would be using the word US and WE in Rev 5 when the 4 faced creatures and the 24 elders sing the song "You have redeemed US ... and WE shall reign ... etc. I need to do more research on this discrepancy also but I think that the manuscripts that use the Greek for US and WE are more authoritative and should be contended for. The other translations use the words People and Them. It matters and it changes the revelation that the 4 faced creatures are symbolic of redeemed saints and not cherumbims. But the only way to prove if this is true is not to contend for my interpretation but to examine the original manuscript wording. Which english translation is being true to the original words in the most authoritative manuscripts? That is the question I must answer and when I have done the research I will be able to decide if the KJV or the ESV has been more faithful to translate the correct English word from the Greek.

Now since this is the challenge we face for EVERY instance where there is a different wording it is the reason we cannot say that the KJV is the best, nor the ESV is the best. It will always depend on the particular discrepancy in questions. Sometimes it will be KJV sometimes it will be ESV.

When people ask "What is the best English translation?" The answer is "It depends on the verse that is being analyzed" If they all say the same, then they are all equivalent, when they differ the answer can only be found by investigating why.

I wish I could say that one translation always made the best decision on translating but you might not agree when you find out the reasons for a particular discrepancy. Too much "interpretation" gets done even in the functional equivalents. (those that advertise as original language to english word for word translation attempts)

I need to get paid for this.

Scribe · Dec 6, 2020

KJV1611 said:

That is an immature response to textual examination. It increases my faith knowing that we can examine these things and make an educated decision instead of blindly following the work of a translators who are not the original writers. Give me the source over the translations. If I find that the translator made a mistake it increases my faith that the manuscripts are preserved in such a condition that I can determine that. Don't you see that? The Word in it's original language and autographs is not corrupt. Getting to that source may sometimes be a challenge but it is there for those who are not afraid of examining it.

Scribe · Dec 6, 2020

KJV1611 said:

Are these comments examples of keeping the words of God or are they examples of academics guessing at what the words of God are?

(1) Matthew 17:21[edit]
KJV: Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting.

Reason: The verse closely resembles Mark 9:29, but it is lacking in Matthew in א (original handwriting), B, θ, some Italic & Syriac & Coptic & Ethiopic manuscripts. It is, however, found in this place in some Greek mss not quite so ancient – C, D, K, L – as well as some other mss of the ancient versions. It is believed to have been assimilated from Mark.[15]

(2) Matthew 18:11[edit]
KJV: For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.

Reason: This verse is lacking in א,B,L (original handwriting), θ, ƒ1, ƒ13, some old Italic & Syriac & Coptic & Georgian mss, and such ancient sources as the Apostolic Canons, Eusebius, Jerome, and others. It is found in some other sources, not quite so ancient, such as D,K,W,X, and the Latin Vulgate. It is not found in any manuscript before the 5th century.[16] According to Bruce Metzger, "There can be little doubt that the words ... are spurious here, being omitted by the earliest witnesses representing several textual types... [This verse was] manifestly borrowed by copyists from Luke 19:10."[17]

(3) Matthew 23:14[edit]
KJV: Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation.

Reason: This verse is very similar to Mark 12:40 and Luke 20:47. This verse is lacking altogether in א,B,D,L,Z,θ, ƒ1, Ethiopic, Armenian, several Italic and Syrian and Coptic mss, and the writings of several early Church Fathers. It appears before verse 13 in K,W, and several minuscules. It appears after verse 13 in ƒ13, some Italic and Syriac and Coptic mss. The fact that it is absent from the most ancient sources of multiple text types and that the sources that do contain the verse disagree about its placement, as well as the fact that it is a repetition of verses found elsewhere, show "that verse 14 is an interpolation derived from the parallel in Mark 12:40 or Luke 20:47 is clear."[17]

Academics don't guess. If you know Greek you can read it. It is the ignorant that guess. Guess that the KJV is perfect because you don't know Greek and have to trust in the translators to do it for you.

Magenta · Dec 6, 2020

Truth7t7 said:

Yes, and I am glad you agree: there is no evidence of the verse prior to the sixth century AD

Angela53510 · Dec 6, 2020

throughfaith said:

No English translation can be the basis of the Bible. Only the Koine Greek, and Hebrew and the Greek in the Septuagint. Those are the only sources to compare.

I used to be obsessed with comparing translations. Then I learned Greek and Hebrew, got some tools like lexicons, exegetical guides and commentaries based on Greek and Hebrew. I can figure out a lot of issues, because some things don't translate well into English. Word order doesn't translate well from Greek, because Greek, like German uses noun and adjectival cases. Verbs are more important for their aspect, rather than linear time, as we use in English. Participles are minor in all the modern languages I have studied. I used my second year French grammar to remind myself of the parts of speech, when I looked for participles, they didn't exist in that compressive case. In Greek, participles are very important, and how you translate them. A lot of these subtle issues are not apparent in a translation into the English language.

Comparing English manuscripts doesn't tell you anything. When I took second year seminary Greek, I took it from Dr. Bill Mounce. He has been on almost every translation committee in modern times. He quit the ESV, because it was just a reattempt of the KJV. It had been billed as a "fresh and exciting new translation," but he and his father, also a Greek scholar, realized the first few sessions that ESV was just another KJV translation. From Early Modern English to Contemporary English! He has also written an often used 1st year seminary Greek text book. I used it in seminary. He had so much insight and understanding into Greek. So many details and stories about Greek word usage. He also has a morphology which has every single word in the Greek NT, and the cases, if it is a noun or adjective, or conjugation if it is a verb. Sitting in a Bible study with some English translations is simply never going to come close to understanding and using the original languages.

I always feel so blessed that God gave me the privilege of learning Koine Greek and Biblical Hebrew. If you want to "put in the work" then learn Greek and Hebrew, you will be on the right track. The languages the Bible was written in!

Blackpowderduelist · Dec 6, 2020

Angela53510 said:

No English translation can be the basis of the Bible. Only the Koine Greek, and Hebrew and the Greek in the Septuagint. Those are the only sources to compare.

I used to be obsessed with comparing translations. Then I learned Greek and Hebrew, got some tools like lexicons, exegetical guides and commentaries based on Greek and Hebrew. I can figure out a lot of issues, because some things don't translate well into English. Word order doesn't translate well from Greek, because Greek, like German uses noun and adjectival cases. Verbs are more important for their aspect, rather than linear time, as we use in English. Participles are minor in all the modern languages I have studied. I used my second year French grammar to remind myself of the parts of speech, when I looked for participles, they didn't exist in that compressive case. In Greek, participles are very important, and how you translate them. A lot of these subtle issues are not apparent in a translation into the English language.

Comparing English manuscripts doesn't tell you anything. When I took second year seminary Greek, I took it from Dr. Bill Mounce. He has been on almost every translation committee in modern times. He quit the ESV, because it was just a reattempt of the KJV. It had been billed as a "fresh and exciting new translation," but he and his father, also a Greek scholar, realized the first few sessions that ESV was just another KJV translation. From Early Modern English to Contemporary English! He has also written an often used 1st year seminary Greek text book. I used it in seminary. He had so much insight and understanding into Greek. So many details and stories about Greek word usage. He also has a morphology which has every single word in the Greek NT, and the cases, if it is a noun or adjective, or conjugation if it is a verb. Sitting in a Bible study with some English translations is simply never going to come close to understanding and using the original languages.

I always feel so blessed that God gave me the privilege of learning Koine Greek and Biblical Hebrew. If you want to "put in the work" then learn Greek and Hebrew, you will be on the right track. The languages the Bible was written in!

There is no imparting reason and intelligence to the kjv cult.

Angela53510 · Dec 6, 2020

Truth7t7 said:

And King James was a bisexual and pervert. He also was so authoritarian, that when his son became king, he was killed by the people for abuse of power, and England became a Commonwealth under Cromwell! (Another big mistake.)

Fact is, we are all sinners saved by the grace of God. There is no perfect translator. There is no perfect or "inspired" translation into any language. Only the original autographs are perfect. There are almost 6000 extant Greek manuscripts of the NT. They have been grouped into families, compared for similarities and differences. There are rules governing the most accurate copies. But Byzantine, in which the TR and hence the KJV are based in, just magically arose in the 8th to 9th centuries AD. There is no connection to any of the other families of manuscripts. Because Greek was the language of the Byzantine Empire, they made it a point to make many copies of the Greek Byzantine manuscripts. But being so far from the original autographs, the scribes would add little notes in the margins of the manuscript to explain things. The next generation would add it to the text, thus all those added verses which were in none of the earliest manuscripts or families of manuscripts. Hence, the KJV is probably one of the most unreliable versions.

But if you can read it, and it speaks to your heart, that is a good version for you. But far from perfect or inspired. I have to wonder how these lies get started, sometimes!

throughfaith · Dec 6, 2020

Dino246 said:

Without blowing trumpets, yes this bible study is attended by those who know how to study the bible. Now which verse or verses do you see where the KJV is incorrect and loses the context?

throughfaith · Dec 6, 2020

Angela53510 said:

No English translation can be the basis of the Bible. Only the Koine Greek, and Hebrew and the Greek in the Septuagint. Those are the only sources to compare.

I used to be obsessed with comparing translations. Then I learned Greek and Hebrew, got some tools like lexicons, exegetical guides and commentaries based on Greek and Hebrew. I can figure out a lot of issues, because some things don't translate well into English. Word order doesn't translate well from Greek, because Greek, like German uses noun and adjectival cases. Verbs are more important for their aspect, rather than linear time, as we use in English. Participles are minor in all the modern languages I have studied. I used my second year French grammar to remind myself of the parts of speech, when I looked for participles, they didn't exist in that compressive case. In Greek, participles are very important, and how you translate them. A lot of these subtle issues are not apparent in a translation into the English language.

Comparing English manuscripts doesn't tell you anything. When I took second year seminary Greek, I took it from Dr. Bill Mounce. He has been on almost every translation committee in modern times. He quit the ESV, because it was just a reattempt of the KJV. It had been billed as a "fresh and exciting new translation," but he and his father, also a Greek scholar, realized the first few sessions that ESV was just another KJV translation. From Early Modern English to Contemporary English! He has also written an often used 1st year seminary Greek text book. I used it in seminary. He had so much insight and understanding into Greek. So many details and stories about Greek word usage. He also has a morphology which has every single word in the Greek NT, and the cases, if it is a noun or adjective, or conjugation if it is a verb. Sitting in a Bible study with some English translations is simply never going to come close to understanding and using the original languages.

I always feel so blessed that God gave me the privilege of learning Koine Greek and Biblical Hebrew. If you want to "put in the work" then learn Greek and Hebrew, you will be on the right track. The languages the Bible was written in!

Could you give just one example where the Greek or hebrew gives a better understanding/ explanation to us than the kjv please ?

Nehemiah6 · Dec 6, 2020

true_believer said:

If popularity is the criterion for the choice of a bible translation, then we know that the end is upon us. The NIV is THE MOST CORRUPT English language translation.

Angela53510 · Dec 6, 2020

KJV1611 said:

You are right! It is not complicated. God inspired the writers of the original manuscripts that were passed around and recopied over and over again. Some got translated into Latin, Syriac, and other ANE (Ancient Near East) languages. The manuscripts were memorized and copied over and over, till there were manuscripts from Israel to Britain. Then the Roman church demanded the Bible should be read only in Greek, Jerome's Latin translation, which was particularly bad, because Jerome's Greek was weak and his Hebrew worse. Meanwhile, the Byzantines in the Eastern Church, which became the Orthodox church just kept pushing their own Greek manuscripts. Enter the 15th century. Erasmus, a Catholic priest translates the Bible into Latin, by comparing to Jerome's Vulgate, and 6 or 7 very late, corrupted Byzantine manuscripts. Copied around the 15th century!

The KJV committee mostly relied on Erasmus' new Latin translation, and the corrupted manuscripts. But they noted in their preface, as more and more manuscripts were found, there would be need to have new translations as Biblical scholars found new information on translating.

However, some people got very stuck in the KJV, made up a list of lies and started to convince people the KJV was the "only" Bible, forgetting the huge difference between 16th century English and 21st century English, and they have been a stumbling block to the gospel ever since.

I didn't get saved till I starting reading the Bible in modern English. (Of course the Holy Spirit was also huge in my salvation!) I never understood the gospel till I could read it in my English, not some 500 year old dead language.

So we know the words of the Bible because we look at the original languages, and other languages in the earliest manuscripts. Not because the KJV is the standard, translated 1500 years after the original autographs were written. The original languages are the bar, or standard. Not the KJV in 16th century English!

throughfaith · Dec 6, 2020

Anyone notice why calvinists mostly use the ESV ?

Angela53510 · Dec 6, 2020

throughfaith said:

I have another post I explained about the case system for nouns and adjectives, which English doesn't even have. In Greek there are 24 possible words for "the!" That includes, all 4 cases (or 5 if you wanted to use the optative, which is barely used in the NT). There are three genders- masculine, feminine and neuter in Greek. English has no genders for objects. German has three genders tracking with Greek. French and the other Romance languages have two genders- masculine and feminine. Then there is plural or singular. In actual fact, some of the forms over lap, there are 17 different words for "the" in Greek. And you learn about whether the noun is singular or plural, what case and gender. For example, the Three genders in the genitive case plural, the word is the same-tone, tone, tone! (Not in Greek because I am on my phone)

Then there are participles. Some are adjectival, some are adverbial. Some tell time, when an action happened, others describe something. They are very difficult to translate into English, of any era.

Verbs are very different from English. Aspect, or what viewpoint you have. You are on the sidewalk watching the parade go by you. You only have one vantage point. The Aorist is more from above in the sky, looking down on the parade. There are tenses in Greek, like past, present and future, indicative and non indicative verbs which do not refer to time at all. But tenses aren't that important. Beginning Greek teaches that the Aorist is the past tense. But when you get into second year Greek, the Aorist can be translated as past, present or future tenses.

A specific example? Bill Mounce has a great example in his first year Greek text book. I also found a link which describes the corruption in the Byzantine text which turns a genitive into a nominative case. That changes the verse from "peace on earth towards all men," and "peace towards men of good will," the genitive case. The first one, the corrupted KJV basically expounds universalism. "Towards all men" means God gives his peace "to all men." The peace that comes from being saved and knowing God. Thus, the KJV is throwing universal salvation into that verse, which disagrees with the rest of the Bible, including the KJV. The harder genitive reading only bestows peace on men of good will, saved people. Here's the link:

https://www.biblicalfoundations.org/peace-earth-good-will-toward-men/

This is vital, because there is only 1 letter difference of the later Greek than the earlier reading. The KJV promotes heresy- that is universalism, but the earlier manuscripts support that all are not saved. Of course, in the KJV it was just a simple mistake arising out of a corrupted manuscript with an added sigma at the end. It's complex, if you don't know Greek. But if you know Greek, it is glaringly obvious. Knowing Greek is very important for any scholar, preacher or translator.

I hope that helps a bit!

throughfaith · Dec 6, 2020

Angela53510 said:

I have another post I explained about the case system for nouns and adjectives, which English doesn't even have. In Greek there are 24 possible words for "the!" That includes, all 4 cases (or 5 if you wanted to use the optative, which is barely used in the NT). There are three genders- masculine, feminine and neuter in Greek. English has no genders for objects. German has three genders tracking with Greek. French and the other Romance languages have two genders- masculine and feminine. Then there is plural or singular. In actual fact, some of the forms over lap, there are 17 different words for "the" in Greek. And you learn about whether the noun is singular or plural, what case and gender. For example, the Three genders in the genitive case plural, the word is the same-tone, tone, tone! (Not in Greek because I am on my phone)

Then there are participles. Some are adjectival, some are adverbial. Some tell time, when an action happened, others describe something. They are very difficult to translate into English, of any era.

Verbs are very different from English. Aspect, or what viewpoint you have. You are on the sidewalk watching the parade go by you. You only have one vantage point. The Aorist is more from above in the sky, looking down on the parade. There are tenses in Greek, like past, present and future, indicative and non indicative verbs which do not refer to time at all. But tenses aren't that important. Beginning Greek teaches that the Aorist is the past tense. But when you get into second year Greek, the Aorist can be translated as past, present or future tenses.

A specific example? Bill Mounce has a great example in his first year Greek text book. I also found a link which describes the corruption in the Byzantine text which turns a genitive into a nominative case. That changes the verse from "peace on earth towards all men," and "peace towards men of good will," the genitive case. The first one, the corrupted KJV basically expounds universalism. "Towards all men" means God gives his peace "to all men." The peace that comes from being saved and knowing God. Thus, the KJV is throwing universal salvation into that verse, which disagrees with the rest of the Bible, including the KJV. The harder genitive reading only bestows peace on men of good will, saved people. Here's the link:

https://www.biblicalfoundations.org/peace-earth-good-will-toward-men/

This is vital, because there is only 1 letter difference of the later Greek than the earlier reading. The KJV promotes heresy- that is universalism, but the earlier manuscripts support that all are not saved. Of course, in the KJV it was just a simple mistake arising out of a corrupted manuscript with an added sigma at the end. It's complex, if you don't know Greek. But if you know Greek, it is glaringly obvious. Knowing Greek is very important for any scholar, preacher or translator.

I hope that helps a bit!

Just one clear example though were the Greek is clearer and Better to understand than the kjv ?

Magenta · Dec 6, 2020

throughfaith said:

I don't care for the ESV

Favourite Bible Translations

Scribe

Guest

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Scribe

Guest

Scribe

Guest

Scribe

Guest

Senior Member

Senior Member

Blackpowderduelist

Guest

Senior Member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Well-known member

Senior Member

Well-known member

Senior Member