Authorized Version of 1611

[McCulloch]

read the KJV Bible.

Is it better than more modern scholarly translations?

Yes, it is.

5. Support your assertions/arguments with evidence. Do not make blanket statements that are not supportable by logic/evidence.

Question for debate: Is there any way in which the KJV is superior to and more authentic than all subsequent versions? Please support your answer with evidence.

[BigChrisfilm]

It's impossible for me to list all the verses and words taken out of the modern translations. But if you go to this web site. http://av1611.com/kjbp/charts/themagicmarker.html . You will see at the bottom of the page an example of all the words/verses completely taken out of the modern translations.

[McCulloch]

It's impossible for me to list all the verses and words taken out of the modern translations. But if you go to this web site. http://av1611.com/kjbp/charts/themagicmarker.html . You will see at the bottom of the page an example of all the words/verses completely taken out of the modern translations.

Perhaps if you could cite a handful of the most important ones, as examples, it might help this discussion.

Another very basic idea to discuss is how the various versions came to us. For instance, for the NT:

1. Original Manuscripts (Greek) → Copies of the originals (Greek) → Translated into Latin (Vulgate) → Translated from Latin into English, KJV.
2. Original Manuscripts (Greek) → Copies of the originals (Greek) → Translated from Greek into English, most modern translations.

Is there some compelling reason to think that the first process (a) is somehow more valid than the second (b)?

[McCulloch]

Matthew 6:13

'And do not lead us into temptation, but deliver us from evil. [For Yours is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever. Amen.]'

And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one.[a]'

Footnotes:
1. Matthew 6:13 Or from evil; some late manuscripts one, / for yours is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever. Amen.

And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.

And do not lead us into temptation, But deliver us from the evil one. For Yours is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever. Amen.[a]

Footnotes:
1. Matthew 6:13 NU-Text omits For Yours through Amen.

και μη εισενεγκης ημας εις πειρασμον αλλα ρυσαι ημας απο του πονηρου

και μη εισενεγκης ημας εις πειρασμον αλλα ρυσαι ημας απο του πονηρου οτι σου εστιν η βασιλεια και η δυναμις και η δοξα εις τους αιωνας αμην

και μη εισενεγκης ημας εις πειρασμον αλλα ρυσαι ημας απο του πονηρου οτι σου εστιν η βασιλεια και η δυναμις και η δοξα εις τους αιωνας αμην

This is what is known as a textual variant. Different versions of the oldest Greek manuscripts of the passage contain different words, because the copyists were not not always that careful with what they may have thought of as God's holy words. The compilers of the NASB put the questionable passage in square brackets, indicating that there is some question regarding the authenticity of the passage. The compilers of the NIV left it out of the main text and included it in a footnote because the earliest known copies of Matthew do not include it. The compilers of the NKJV included it in the main text, but also put a footnote to alert the reader that there are some disagreements regarding this passage. The editors of the KJV just pretend that there are no disagreements.

Which approach do you think is more true to the original? Why?

[MikeH]

I would say that newer translations that come with study aids (most of them do) can give a more accurate message than the KJV can. Why? For the same reason that newer textbooks and encyclopedias do. We can directly revisit and re-translate the original documents, with the assistance of worldwide scholars and software comparing and processing every word and phrase with the hebrew and greek languages.

[micatala]

It's impossible for me to list all the verses and words taken out of the modern translations. But if you go to this web site. http://av1611.com/kjbp/charts/themagicmarker.html . You will see at the bottom of the page an example of all the words/verses completely taken out of the modern translations.

Perhaps if you could cite a handful of the most important ones, as examples, it might help this discussion.

Another very basic idea to discuss is how the various versions came to us. For instance, for the NT:

1. Original Manuscripts (Greek) → Copies of the originals (Greek) → Translated into Latin (Vulgate) → Translated from Latin into English, KJV.
2. Original Manuscripts (Greek) → Copies of the originals (Greek) → Translated from Greek into English, most modern translations.

Is there some compelling reason to think that the first process (a) is somehow more valid than the second (b)?

As I recall, scenario a) for the KJV actually included a translation from the Latin into the Greek before the translation into English, at least for portions of the text. This is because the editor (William Tyndale I believe) indicated he would compile a version if there was a Greek manuscript to translate from.

Here is one discussion:

* Note: The New King James Version [NKJV; see book review] should not really be considered a modern version. The NKJV's New Testament wording always corresponds exactly with the KJV, because both the NKJV and the KJV are based the same Greek texts. (The KJV's New Testament was based upon Erasmus' Greek text as modified by Stephanus and Beza. The NKJV's New Testament was based primarily upon Erasmus' Greek text as modified by Stephanus and Beza, but its translators also consulted the so-called Majority Text.) However unlike the original KJV, the NKJV does not include the Apocrypha. Though the NKJV provides a modern English rewording of the KJV wording, the NKJV still has all of the same errors that the KJV derived from Erasmus' Greek New Testament, which is plagued with corrupt readings, as explained in this article. Below are three examples of corrupt texts in the KJV and NKJV. In all three verses, Erasmus' Greek New Testament text was based upon copies of the Latin Vulgate, not on any ancient Greek texts. In other words, the corruption of these verses had no support in any Greek texts prior to 1516.

Further on, Nguyen discusses the origin of the Textus Receptus.

Truly major differences between the KJV and modern translations of the New Testament are primarily due to the inaccuracy of the so-called Textus Receptus [TR], the Greek text upon which the KJV's New Testament was based. According to Bruce Metzger (The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration, Third Edition, Oxford University Press, 1992, pages 95-118), the TR primarily resulted from the work of a Dutch Roman Catholic priest and Greek scholar by the name of Desiderius Erasmus, who published his first Greek New Testament text in 1516. The first edition of Erasmus' text was hastily and haphazardly prepared over the extremely short period of only five months. (ibid., page 106) That edition was based mostly upon two inferior twelfth century Greek manuscripts, which were the only manuscripts available to Erasmus "on the spur of the moment" (ibid., page 99).

It seems to me that, rather than being superior to other translations, the KJV and NKJV are actually inferior with respect to reflecting the original or oldest extant texts.

[krgjm]

"Question for debate: Is there any way in which the KJV is superior to and more authentic than all subsequent versions? Please support your answer with evidence."

It is possibly superior than subsequent versions, and it is possibly inferior to subsequent versions. Without the originals, we shall never know!

This was a big problem for me when I was first saved. I researched and researched, and there were lots of ideas but no way to know for sure.

Then I prayed, and this was the answer I received:

Whose word is this? God's. How can we know for sure what is a communication from God and what is not? God has to affirm it for us. You could hold the originals in your own hands and read it with your own eyes and come up with a lie, or with something different than the guy next to you reading the same original. Just use a different dictionary, or come from a different culture, education, background, or relationship with Christ. The bottom line is that you have to be listening to God himself if you want the correct "version."

So how do you pick a version? Find out which translators where walking closest to God; were in the Spirit. I read all the introductions from all the translators of all the versions I could find to try to decern what their motivation was; if they were in the Spirit or serving some other motive. My conclusion is no better than my discernment, but I believe if one is going to come to the best conclusion in God's eye then the question should be addressed from a spiritual perspective rather than a worldly perspective.

All the new versions I found were designed to cater to a particular culture or generation, and/or to correct a grave error detected by Biblical scholars. The all also had a copyright. Granted, the KJV was translated by scholars, but listen to what they said about their work in "The Translators to the Reader:"

"Truly, good Christian Reader, we never thought from the beginning that we should need to make a new translation, nor yet to make of a bad one a good one:...but to make a good one better, or out of many good ones one principal good one, not justly excepted against; that hath been ur endeavour, that our mark. To that purpose there were many chosen, that were greater in other men's eyes then in their own, and that sought the truth rather than their own praise...And in what sort did these assemble? In the trust of their own knowledge, or of their sharpness of wit, or deepness of judgment, as it were in the arm of flesh? At no hand. They trusted i him that hath the key of David, opening, and no man shutting; they prayed to the Lord, the Father of our Lord, to the effect that St. Augustine did; O let they Scriptures be my pure delight; let me not be deceived i them, neither let me deceive by them..."

That impressed me. That is fruit of the Holy Spirit. I almost became a King James Only fanatic.

But look what else they say:

Therefore as S.Augustine saith, that variety of translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures: so diversity of signification and sense in the margin, where the text is not so clear, must needs do good, yea, is necessary, as we are persuaded. We know that Sixtus Quintus expressly forbiddeth that any variety of readings of their vulgar edition should be put in the margin, (which though it be not altogether the same thing to that we have in hand, yet it looketh that way) but we think he hath not all of his own side his favourers for this conceit. They that are wise, had rather have their judgments at liberty in differences of readings, than to be captivated to one, when it may be the other. If they were sure that their high priest had all laws shut up in his breast, as Paul the Second bragged, and that he were as free from error by special privilege as the dictators of Rome were made by law inviolable, it were another matter; then his word were an oracle, his opinion a decision. But the eyes of the world are now open, God be thanked, and have been a great while: they find that he is subject to the same affections and infirmities that others be, that his skin is penetrable; and therefore so much as he proveth, not as much as he claimeth, they grant and embrace.

I believe the KJV translators were in the Spirit and fully serving God. I believe the KJV has proven to be reliable. I would never say there is not a good modern version, but we see the trend (neutral gender, etc) and I see no reason to mess around now. I have never found versions to be a good indicator of the faith of a proclaiming Christian. The best indicator is the fruits they manifest, there understanding of who they are (sinners) and who Jesus Christ is, the Son of God, the Lamb of God, Lord, King, God.

You are going to need a dictionary no matter which version of the Bible you use. Which dictionary should you use? The debate could go on forever, and take us farther and farther from Christ.

[The Nice Centurion]

Double post

[The Nice Centurion]

[Replying to McCulloch in post #1]
Still the KJV 1611 falls apart into OV and RV.

Joseph Smith used OV to restore lost verses to the bible. Therefore OV or Inspired Version (Joseph Smith Bible) is what we should use for reading, research and study too!