A different question about Bible versions 2

[Nicholas25]

I am not KJVO by any means because that stance causes so much division among people who love Christ. However in saying that, what do you guys think about the verses that are in the KJV but are not in other versions? Does that make the KJV better? Did God keep one Bible version (most say KJV) perfect. Is one particular version 100% accurate from cover to cover?

Again I am not KJVO although I do consider it the best, if there is a best. I have been using the Holman Christian Standard FCA Bible recently.

 

[Hope of Glory]

I think there are three categories that those verses fall into:

1. The ones that we know were inserted. Often, we know when and who inserted them. (OK, there are those who think it's all a big conspiracy and/or that they were in the originals, but we didn't know it and God reinserted them using these individuals, but when we have notes that the individual inserted them, I say, "Go with that!")

2. The ones that we have a pretty good indication. They are not in the oldest and most reliable, but we don't know when/where they were inserted.

3. The ones that we take an educated guess on. (Such as the number of the beast: Is it 606, 616, or 666? The oldest do not have 666, but the three numbers are pretty evenly distributed throughout manuscripts, and I think it is, and I can give you an essay as to why.)

That being said, I like the KJV. It is well written, and well translated, as long as we remember that English has changed.

If you see italics, those are words that were added by the translators and are not in the original manuscripts.

I am most familiar with it.

But, it is the work of men, and as such, should not be considered infallible. Even they did not think so.

 

[Deacon]

In most of church history the church body did not have major portions of Scripture.
Our battles over these verses are like two gluttons fighting over dessert.

If the verses are original then sure, it would be best to have them in the text.
If they are not original, then of course it’d be better if they were left out.

Since we don’t know, it becomes important to identify them (something the KJV doesn’t do).

Once they are identified you should consider any doctrine composed from them should be confirmed by other portions of Scripture.

The best Bible is the one you use.

Rob

 

[Bluefalcon]

In most of church history the church body did not have major portions of Scripture.
Our battles over these verses are like two gluttons fighting over dessert.

If the verses are original then sure, it would be best to have them in the text.
If they are not original, then of course it’d be better if they were left out.

Since we don’t know, it becomes important to identify them (something the KJV doesn’t do).

Once they are identified you should consider any doctrine composed from them should be confirmed by other portions of Scripture.

The best Bible is the one you use.

Rob

Good post! I agee wholeheartedly. I think there are some verses in the KJV that are not original, like Lk 17:36, Ac 8:37, 15:34, and other words within verses, such as those found in 1 Jn 5:7-8. There are good reasons why these verses should not be considered original. But there are also verses in the KJV that I think are original, and with good reason, such as Mt 17:21, 18:11, 23:14, Mk 7:16, 9:44, 9:46, 11:26, 15:28, Lk 23:17, Jn 5:3b-4, Ac 28:29, Ro 16:24, etc., not to mention Jn 7:53-8:11 and Mk 16:9-20.

 

[Hope of Glory]

The KJV identifies some things that they inserted themselves, by using italics. If it's in italics, it's not in the original. They put them there to clarify things. I think as often as not, it muddies things.

Also, it was pointed out to me that 666 and 616 are the only common numbers of the beast. The 606 number I was taking on the word of someone who does textual criticism, and have not seen such a manuscript personally. Although I have seen three different variations with 616, 666 spelled out, and 666 abbreviated.

 

[Mike4334]

Versions

Don't concern yourself with nuances in old texts. Most good translations footnote difference. All you have to do is look at the footnotes of good translations to see that the Bible has not changed drastically even between old manuscripts. There is no doubt in the original.

Furthermore, translation inserts more errors than bad manuscripts. Does it surprise you that English has no verb for faith. Faithing makes no sense to us. Faith is only a noun in English. Also telling someone the truth is a verb in greek. For English people that would be like truing somone, if you will. Makes little sense. I can go on into other things but translaters often have to do their best at how they change words like these without inserting bias or manmade doctrines in God's holy and inspired word. The risk/benefit of translation is definitly worth taking but in matters of conflict Greek should be consulted.

As for the KJV, It is a very good translation but it is no better than the Greek itself if you cannot understand it. All versions have one or to errors of translation. NIV has one that says that a man was dead for two days and Yet Jesus stay. The yet implies that Jesus didn't care. Many versions also mangle up Ephesians on the passage about husband and wife. If you want to do serious studing multiple versions can help. Say a KJV and a NASB.

 

[Keith M]

I am not KJVO by any means because that stance causes so much division among people who love Christ.

Only when folks belittle the MVs as not being God's word.

However in saying that, what do you guys think about the verses that are in the KJV but are not in other versions?

Like the others who have posted, I agree many of these verses were probably not in the originals. However, since we do not have the original autographs it is impossible to say with 100% certainty whether particular verses were included or were added later. Educated guessing is all we can do.

Does that make the KJV better?

No.

Did God keep one Bible version (most say KJV) perfect. Is one particular version 100% accurate from cover to cover?

Not as some view "perfect." However, all the various legitimate English Bible translations are perfect in that they convey the plan of salvation, Christ's deity, His virgin birth, His sinless life, His death, His burial and His glorious and victorious resurrection, and the power of His shed blood. In this respect all the legitimate versions are 100% accurate from cover to cover.

Again I am not KJVO although I do consider it the best, if there is a best. I have been using the Holman Christian Standard FCA Bible recently.

There is nothing wrong with being KJVP. Many folks prefer one of the KJVs over any other Bible translation. That is fine until folks decide to make their Bible preference the Bible preference of everyone else.

 

[Rippon]

Even the KJVP folks probably have not taken the time to really compare any MV's . They prefer ithe KJV not because of textual reasons , but because of sentiment and tradition . " It just sounds like the Bible ought to sound ." They don't like it when a version has "unique" or "one and only" instead of "begotten" -- even though the word begotten does not convey the accurate sense . Being KJVP is a better stance than the KJVO position but it still has its problems .

 

[Hope of Glory]

Even the KJVP folks probably have not taken the time to really compare any MV's . They prefer ithe KJV not because of textual reasons , but because of sentiment and tradition . " It just sounds like the Bible ought to sound ." They don't like it when a version has "unique" or "one and only" instead of "begotten" -- even though the word begotten does not convey the accurate sense . Being KJVP is a better stance than the KJVO position but it still has its problems .

I would one more to "sentinment" and "tradition". I think it's important to have a common version in a study, and I'm simply the most familiar with it.

However, for study, even if using the KJV for the basis, one needs to look at the original languages, and if unable to do that, compare other translations, preferrably literal translations such as Rotherham's or the CLV. The NASB is also very good. (I use the LXX, as I know very little about the Hebrew, but do understand that Hebrew scholars translated the LXX (closer to the source), and most Messianic Jewish groups that I interact with place the LXX on a higher standard than the Masoretic text.)

One example that I use is the story of Abraham and Abimelech. In the orignal story, there is much emphasis placed on the number 7. To take an oath is to seven one's self. The name of the well uses the same consonants. Both names are used seven times. However, the KJV (and most other translations) use the English method of pronouns and change it to "he", and I think miss some of the emphasis in the original.

 

[robycop3]

Hope Of Glory...

A deep study of any translation of Scripture into English will reveal some subtleties and nuances in the old languages that simply cannot be expressed in English & still make sense to the reader. You've provided a great example here. I know of no one named 'seven' in English, nor is it used as a verb in everyday speech. (However, I HAVE seen 'sevenize'!) However, such usage would make perfect sense to a Hebrew reader.

Since my knowledge is so small, I TRUST JESUS GOD-THE WORD-to convey His writings to me in the forms He's chosen for me to read, and I trust His designated Teacher, the HOLY SPIRIT, to lead me into the knowledge of His word as He chooses, at His own pace. I cannot even hope to understand enough Hebrew or koine Greek to learn God's word from them. It would indeed take a miracle for that to happen. Although I certainly won't rule out such a miracle, for now I'll just keep on reading/studying in the English versions He's made available to me.

 

[TC]

Even the KJVP folks probably have not taken the time to really compare any MV's . They prefer ithe KJV not because of textual reasons , but because of sentiment and tradition . " It just sounds like the Bible ought to sound ." They don't like it when a version has "unique" or "one and only" instead of "begotten" -- even though the word begotten does not convey the accurate sense . Being KJVP is a better stance than the KJVO position but it still has its problems .

WRONG. I continually read the KJV and many other translations at the same time. I even have a 4-barrelled parallel Bible so I can directly compare the versions. I know others who consistantly do the same. I still prefer the KJV/NKJV over the others. We are not lazy or ignorant just because we do not agree with you.

The differences between the KJV and most MV's are simply texual variants in their underlying texts and I do not have a problem with them as long as they are marked by a footnote. IMO, the NKJV has the best set of such footnotes.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Being KJVP is a better stance than the KJVO position but it still has its problems .

Wow! What a claim! In other words, are you saying "Agree with me or you have a problem?" Sounds like another group of versionsists.

 

[Keith M]

There is no problem with anyone being KJVP at all. No one has to answer to anyone but God regarding their choice of Bible versions. Those who have the problem are those who want to shove their Bible preference down the throats of all Bible readers. The "agree with me or you're wrong" attitude is definitely a problem, no matter what version you are trying to promote - KJV, TNIV or any other version. There are, or at least there were, several folks on this board who want everyone else to agree with them on their choice of Bible version. Guess what? It ain't gonna happen! Everyone has their own preference for whatever reason, and someone trying to promote their own favorite as being better than any other version is not going to make other folks change their minds. The "my favorite version is better than your favorite version" attitude is going to do nothing but strengthen the resolve of those who don't agree.

 

[Rippon]

WOW ! Some fine examples of extracting some wrong conclusions based on faulty premises .

TC : I said nothing about KJVP being "lazy" or "ignorant" .

C4K : I had said that being KJVP is a better stance than the KJVO position , but that it still has its problems . You took that ball and said IOW , 'Agree with me or you have a problem'. Hmm , that is quite the inference .

KM : Whenever I have heard the phrase " Don't shove it down my throat " , I have invariably been charged with talking too much about the Lord with someone . I am not shoving anything down anyone's throat .

I am a multi-versionist All of us have our preferences . We have our favorites . We base that on criteria that ranges from substantive to less weighty ideas .

I admit that I think KJVP are resistant to compare their version to others is anecdotal . It's been in my range of experience . Others here who are JKVP do indeed compare translations and even consult the Greek and Hebrew . So I was doing some generalizing . Forgive me for giving the impression that all JKVP are in the same category . But TC , are you KJVP ? I had thought earlier that you were not .

 

[TC]

Originally Posted by Rippon
Even the KJVP folks probably have not taken the time to really compare any MV's . They prefer ithe KJV not because of textual reasons , but because of sentiment and tradition .

This statement of yours tells me that KJVP's are either ignorant of what MV's say or just plain to lazy to read them. I earlier said that I was not KJVO, but I am TRP - I prefer Bibles translated from the TR. I would also like to see a good translation made of the majority text. I have many Bible versions, but I spend more time reading the TR based ones than the CT ones.

BTW, I was stationed at Osan AB in the early 90's, so I was wondering were you are in relation to that (about 35 km south of Seoul).