versions of Bible

An argument I had with my grandfather and he told me off. Why is it ok to use the The King James Bible which is a translation by some guy called John Wycliffe that's translated from Greek or Hebrew. But it's not ok to use other translated versions that are written in a more comprehensible modern English. When the guy translated it he just translated it into *his* modern English, so why shouldn't they be allowed to do the same and update the English and the translation. If it's all about the 'original' then no translation should be ok. If a translation is ok then surely any good one will do.

An argument I had with my grandfather and he told me off. Why is it ok to use the The King James Bible which is a translation by some guy called John Wycliffe that's translated from Greek or Hebrew. But it's not ok to use other translated versions that are written in a more comprehensible modern English. When the guy translated it he just translated it into *his* modern English, so why shouldn't they be allowed to do the same and update the English and the translation. If it's all about the 'original' then no translation should be ok. If a translation is ok then surely any good one will do.

The difference between the KJV and Modern translations is the supporting Hebrew and Greek manuscripts

Try finding Matthew 17:21, 18:11, Acts 8:37, Roman's 16:24 in the NIV, ESV?

They are missing verses, because they used manuscripts from Egypt, the less than 1% of manuscript evidence,the Alexandrian Text Type, that was revived in 1881 England by Westcott & Hort in their newly created Greek Apparatus

There are very good reasons why those verses don't appear in the main text of newer translations. They aren't "missing", but are normally printed in the footnotes. Bear in mind also that verse numbering was only invented in the 1560's, in a version that directly preceded the KJV.

Dont argue with your grandfather.

This is an issue that has filled hundreds of pages of debate in this forum. There are many component pieces to the issue, so it's not easy to summarize it briefly. However, I will try...

The KJV was essentially a re-write of previous English editions (all from the 1500's), which depended on the Masoretic Hebrew manuscripts from about the tenth century AD, and on Erasmus' five printed Greek editions of the New Testament. Wycliffe's translation (late 1300's) was not a primary source, though I'm sure the translators were familiar with it. There are issues with both Old and New Testament sources; Old, because most of the quotations of OT passages in the NT don't match the Masoretic text wording; and New, because Erasmus had less than a dozen manuscripts available to examine, none of them complete.

In the centuries since 1611, there have been nearly 6,000 Greek manuscripts discovered, and thousands in other languages. Also, the Septuagint Old Testament (copied from Hebrew into Greek between about 250 and 50 BC) has come to light, along with other major discoveries such as the Dead Sea scrolls. Simply put, there is far more (and much older) source material today than in 1611, and there is greater understanding of both Greek and Hebrew.

There are charges of corruption (inadvertent and intentional) against many of the source materials not used for the KJV. These are difficult to substantiate, and the arguments often sound more like conspiracy theories than sound research-based evidence. At the same time, there is a greater volume of evidence for the text underlying the KJV. Sadly though, some people have become so focused on defending the KJV that they have crossed the line into idolatry, even making claims of divine inspiration of its English wording.

For those who have become familiar with its language, the KJV is often the preferred translation; that's fine, as long as those who prefer it don't compare everything else to it, because it is merely one translation, and not the standard against which all translations are to be compared.

For a more thorough and scholarly treatment of the subject, I highly recommend James White's The King James Only Controversy. Perhaps after you read it, your grandfather will be willing to do so.

There are very good reasons why those verses don't appear in the main text of newer translations. They aren't "missing", but are normally printed in the footnotes. Bear in mind also that verse numbering was only invented in the 1560's, in a version that directly preceded the KJV.

What ever anyones arguments against a particular translation ,its beneficial to hear both sides and test their claims . I heard both sides . For the ' modern translations ' and for the kjv .
During a 2 year on going bible study with us all using different translations , without fail every time the kjv was the most consistent and reliable, especially on context and not having to aways ' refer to the greek

Respectfully, you give no criteria for what you consider "reliable". Reliable according to what?

Respectfully, you give no criteria for what you consider "reliable". Reliable according to what?

An argument I had with my grandfather and he told me off. Why is it ok to use the The King James Bible which is a translation by some guy called John Wycliffe that's translated from Greek or Hebrew. But it's not ok to use other translated versions that are written in a more comprehensible modern English. When the guy translated it he just translated it into *his* modern English, so why shouldn't they be allowed to do the same and update the English and the translation. If it's all about the 'original' then no translation should be ok. If a translation is ok then surely any good one will do.