Where do you say the modern versions come from?

Simple - different text bodies.

Thats why the NKJV sounds so much like the KJV - same text body.

 

Well since I believe the Word of God is inspired---I would have to answer with the same answer I have for the KJV----From the Mind of God.:godisgood:

Bro Tony

 

One of the decisions of the translators of the KJV was to insure that their version would read well (out loud) in the church... so of course they "read different".

Why are the versions different? Same origin - different translational philosophies.

The "text-bodies" are about 97% similar for any version;
sure there are some differences but it's not the major reason for the differences.

These differences between these "texts" you suggest are not the reason for the differences, most of those differences are covered in footnotes within these "modern" versions --THEY let you know that there are differences.

Languages change over time- it doesn't take a genius to realize that.
Translation techniques and philosophies also change;
...and knowledge is gained over time.

These modern versions want to explain the hard places--and IMHO there are plenty of those in the KJV.

I think if the original translators of the KJV were to come back today they would be favorably impressed by the elucidation of the scriptures seen in todays versions.

We also have the benefit of many archaeological discoveries that have clarified some of the words that we may have been unsure of in the past.

Rob

 

Where do the modern versions come from? Same place the KJV came from. Same place the Geneva Bible came from....a team of translators influenced by GOD, and a printing press.

 

Whenever our pastor has to define a word in his KJV it is always the same word in my NKJV. For instance...2 Tim. 3:3 incontinent (KJV) means without self control which is what the NKJV says. From what I understand the KJV and the NKJV are translated from the same texts. I have trouble understanding the KJV since I was not raised on it. (or any Bible for that matter) I do not believe I am studying an inferior translation which is what you're wanting to imply.

 

"I am not ashamed of the gospel, as worded in the AV1611, for it is the power of God unto salvation to all those who believe."
Romans 1:17

The belief that the KJV translators' work was perfect and that their work was infallible is a false belief. I hope that this is not a thread about that!

I like the KJV. I’ve memorized many verses in its stylized language.

But why are we trying to keep the word of God hidden behind 16th century English?

Listen to the words of the translators in the preface to the KJV:

It is translation that opens the window to let in the light;
that breaks the shell, that we may eat the kernel;
that puts aside the curtain, that we may look into the most holy place;
that removes the cover of the well, that we may come by the water;
even as Jacob rolled away the stone from the mouth of the well, by which means the flocks of Laban were watered.
Indeed without translation into the vulgar tongue, the unlearned are but like children at Jacob's well (which was deep) without a bucket or something to draw with: or as that person mentioned by Esay, to whom when a sealed book was delivered with this motion, Read this, I pray thee, he was fain to make this answer, I cannot, for it is sealed.
[SNIP]

Aquila, of whom we spoke before, translated the Bible as carefully and as skillfully as he could; and yet he thought good to go over it again, and then it got the credit with the Jews, to be called accurately done, as St. Hierome witnessed.
How many books of profane learning have been gone over again and again, by the same translators, by others?
Of one and the same book of Aristotle's Ethics there are extant not so few as six or seven several translations.
Now if this cost may be bestowed upon the gourd, which afforded us a little shade, and which to day flourishes, but tomorrow is cut down; what may we bestow, nay, what ought we not to bestow, upon the vine, the fruit whereof makes glad the conscience of man, and the stem whereof abides for ever?

And this is the word of God, which we translate. What is the chaff to the wheat? says the Lord. Tanti vitreum, quanti verum margaritum! (says Tertullian).



Rob

 

All the "new versions" are not the same as you imply.

In just the 85 years between the 1526 Tyndale's and the 1611 KJV, you can find all the same-type differences between the pre-1611 English Bibles of which the KJV was a revision and the KJV as you can find between the KJV and later English translations from the same underlying texts such as the NKJV, the Modern KJV, the KJ21, the KJ2000 [in over 370 years of change in the English language]. In fact, there are some textual differences between the pre-1611 English Bibles and the KJV that are greater than any such claimed differences between the KJV and the NKJV. The 1994 KJ21 that mainly just updates some archiac words in the KJV is much closer and more in agreement with the KJV than the 1611 KJV is with the 1535 Coverdale's Bible. There were many actual differences in number of words between the pre-1611 English Bibles and the KJV [sometimes the pre-1611 Bibles had fewer words than the KJV and sometimes they had more words than the KJV].

Many "new versions" are based on a different Greek text than the KJV, NKJV, MKJV, etc., but the textual differences are sometimes exaggerated by KJV-only authors.

 

The OP starts out with a faulty premise and then degenerates from there. The "modern versions" are all just like the KJV in that they convey the plan of salvation and the information God chose to hand down. They just use a bit different wording. The supposed differences are in matters that don't amount to a hill of beans. Supporters of the myth that the KJV is the only valid English Bible version blow these differences grossly out of proportion. The differences in the original texts amount to very little - again certain people blow these differences grossly out of proportion. Compare the KJV with the NASB, the NIV, the NKJV or any of the other legitimate English Bible versions. You will find without exception that they convey the same doctrines and the plan of salvation just as the KJV. Imagine that! The faulty premise that the "modern versions" are inferior to the KJV is erroneous from the beginning and it just keeps getting worse.

 

There are presently 820 words in the King James Dictionary that are defined to modern usage. That means these words no longer mean what they did in 1611.Many of these words were used more than once.Together that makes understanding difficult.What is worse as that the unsuspecting will recognize a word in it's modern usage and not recognize that the word had a different meaning in 1611 and not correctly understand the verse they are reading at all.Even worse it gets incorrectly interpeted by a young untrained or poorly trained preacher and he delivers a sermon which has little or no bearing on what God meant to say.

When translations are compared for accuracy of translation, the measuring stick should be from the original texts(language) to the new language.The comparison of one translation to another is not valid by making one english translation the measuring stick and seeing where the other translations differ.

I think it unfair to make claims for any translation of the Bible that the translators themselves did not make.

All of this said I am just to be clear KJB-Preferred and use that translation most of the time. That being said please remember to trust but verify.:BangHead:

 

This is a good comparative analysis of earlier versions and more recent versions. It begins with their basis and moves into comparing specific scriptures.

http://www.propadeutic.com/faith/analysis2.html

If you go to the bottom of the page, the author has a link to what he believes about the Bible. It is interesting to note that he is also a GI Joe fan :thumbs: (not meant to take anything away from his analysis!)

 

Simply stated the "modern" versions are developed from all the manuscripts available to us now.

...and the KJV used all the manuscripts available to the translators at that time.

Rob

 

...and then they took what they considered the "best of" parts from the differing masnuscripts they had available and compiled the Textus Receptus after they had translated the KJV.

 

Bible attck snipped

Some translators of the Alexandrian versions LIED when they said that in their preface.No shame!

NO!!
The KJB is based upon the CORRECT Antiochan MSS.

 

At least, we agree that some have "No shame!". :BangHead: {shake head, sadly} :tear:

Ed

 

No.


BUT...

Is GOD limited to just one ms or "set" of mss?

 

Anti-Alexandrian:They are based upon the gnostic/philosopher tainted Alexandrian forgeries.

Howdya KNOW they were forged?


Some translators of the Alexandrian versions LIED when they said that in their preface.No shame!

Maybe, maybe not. You're guessing.



NO!!
The KJB is based upon the CORRECT Antiochan MSS.[/quote]

Howdya KNOW they're the correct ones? More guessing. Howdya KNOW the Alex mss are incorrect? Still MORE guessing.

 

Oh my goodness!