User Tag List

Results 1 to 14 of 14

Thread: The King James Version or NCV, RSV or NIV, does it make a difference?

  1. #1
    Journeyman Hobie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    202
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 11 Times in 10 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    115

    The King James Version or NCV, RSV or NIV, does it make a difference?

    There are basically only 2 streams of Bible versions, the true text of the Textus Receptus (Majority Text) on which the King James Version is based, and those which picked up the Alexandrian manuscripts (Minority Text), the Codex Alexandrian, Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus which have been shown to have deleted and changed many parts of the text and are unreliable to say the least and purposely corrupted at some key texts. Some of these have taken out whole chapters or missing whole books, or worse. So its not just a 'different translation' the Alexandrian manuscripts or the new versions based on it have tried to change doctrines and meanings. In the new version such as the RSV/ NIV the following is missing so its message or meaning it gave has just been wiped out:

    Matt 17:21
    Matt 18:11
    Matt 23:14
    Mark 7:16
    Mark 9:44
    Mark 9:46
    Mark 11:26
    Mark 15:28
    Luke 17:36
    Luke 23:17
    John 5:4
    Acts 8:37
    Acts 15:34
    Acts 28:29
    Romans 16:24

    Also, look at Rev 1:11, which I have always memorized as: "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end." That phrase is also missing from the NRSV.

    The problem is that it is not a 'different translation', it basically is editing by these unknown person(s) to take out whatever they disagree with or doesn't fit with their doctrine or traditions. Many of the new modern versions such as the NIV and others are based on a few corrupted manuscripts which form the basis of the Minority Text, many which can be traced back to their original source, the changed Alexandrian manuscripts or Alexandrian codices.

    From what I have come across it seems that the Textus Receptus, also called the Byzantine Text is based on the vast majority of manuscripts still in existence. The manuscripts were brought together by many were faithful to its text such as Lucian, Erasmus, Stephanus, Beza and the Elzevir brothers to form the text known as Textus Receptus. When the Protestant Reformers decided to translate the scriptures directly from Greek into the languages of Europe, they selected Textus Receptus as their foundation Greek document and for good reason. The Minority Text of the Alexandrian manuscripts were clearly and thoroughly useless because of the outright changes and what can only be called a corruption of the original text. Today, the Textus Receptus text has been attacked fiercely for its contrast against the Alexandrian manuscripts with their changes, amendments, deletions, and corruptions but yet it has been shown to be reliable. So it appears it does make a difference which version you choose.

  2. #2
    Journeyman deborah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Posts
    83
    Thanks
    10
    Thanked 19 Times in 10 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    8333
    Apologies for my basic answer. But I too have struggled with which bible version is the best. I know some hold to the kjv as other versions have parts of scripture missing. However what about the thought that actually the kjv added parts that were not there , to uphold the majesty of kingship , the place of women etc ext .

  3. #3
    Body part Right Divider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    15,680
    Thanks
    14,068
    Thanked 21,658 Times in 12,237 Posts

    Blog Entries
    7
    Mentioned
    44 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147710

    Lightbulb

    Quote Originally Posted by deborah View Post
    Apologies for my basic answer. But I too have struggled with which bible version is the best. I know some hold to the kjv as other versions have parts of scripture missing. However what about the thought that actually the kjv added parts that were not there , to uphold the majesty of kingship , the place of women etc ext .
    It is virtually impossible to translate from Hebrew and Greek to English without occasianlly adding words to make correct English.

    The KJV always shows where those words are added (italics). There is nothing wrong with that.
    Quote Originally Posted by Squeaky View Post
    That explains why your an idiot.
    Quote Originally Posted by God's Truth View Post
    Father figure, Son figure, and Holy Spirit figure.
    Quote Originally Posted by God's Truth View Post
    You preach against me for preaching obedience to Christ for salvation.
    Col 2:9 (AKJV/PCE)
    (2:9) For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

    1Tim 4:10 (AKJV/PCE)
    (4:10) For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.

    Something that was SPOKEN OF since the world began CANNOT be the SAME thing as something KEPT SECRET since the world began.

  4. The Following User Says Thank You to Right Divider For Your Post:

    JudgeRightly (July 7th, 2019)

  5. #4
    TOL Subscriber
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    66
    Thanks
    2
    Thanked 4 Times in 3 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    2179
    I don't know much about the process used for different translations and know that man is fallible and prone to prove his belief but Christ is still present and God will preserve his word. Comparing scripture to scripture as instructed is a process that proves out which translation is better. I prefer KJV or I don't see a fault as of yet as it proves Christ and His finished work for man and fully reveals that man can do nothing and warns against adding the most miniscule thing to his word or true faith which is His faith.

  6. #5
    Over 750 post club Bradley D's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    San Jose, California
    Posts
    857
    Thanks
    40
    Thanked 252 Times in 172 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    168801
    I like the KJV. When comparing it with the Hebrew and Greek word definitions it seemed to me to be quite accurate.

  7. #6
    TOL Subscriber
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    66
    Thanks
    2
    Thanked 4 Times in 3 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    2179
    Compare in this manner. God said (OT), Jesus (the Word), and this one is needed,,,Spirit that resides in you. In that order as it was given and if there's disagreement by that order?

  8. #7
    Journeyman Hobie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    202
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 11 Times in 10 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    115
    Quote Originally Posted by Right Divider View Post
    It is virtually impossible to translate from Hebrew and Greek to English without occasianlly adding words to make correct English.

    The KJV always shows where those words are added (italics). There is nothing wrong with that.
    Very true and even today for the most part if you disclose it, that is all that's needed. The thing that most people don't know today is that for centuries the Textus Receptus was the standard and the KJV along with many others that used it as the basis of their version:
    "Tyndale New Testament 1526-1530.
    "Coverdale Bible 1535.
    "Matthew Bible 1537.
    "Great Bible 1539.
    "Geneva Bible 1560-1644.
    "Bishops' Bible 1568.

    Then late in the 1800's two Anglican churchmen in what I can only say that on purpose, Westcott & Hort picked up the Alexandrian manuscripts and then created a version based on them. Westcott & Hort with clear intent took these corrupted Alexandrian texts and used it to force through their version, as they supported views prevalent in their time from Darwinism & secular humanist questioning of the validity of orthodox Christianity. If just a few verses or text could be altered or brought into question, it would serve their purpose with this version. Gone was the resurrection story in the book of Mark (the last twelve verses of the KJV). Gone was Acts 8:37 where the Ethiopian eunuch confesses Jesus as the Son of God along with many other passages. The numerous new modern translations have picked up in what can only be called corrupted version, and so are based on the Westcott & Hort text including the American Standard Version (ASV), the New International Version (NIV), the New World Translation (NWT). To check if you have based on the Alexandrian texts that were used by Westcott & Hort's, see if it has Acts 8:37. They knowingly made a translation of what was a changed or heavily edited, and in many scholars opinion, corrupted Alexandrian translation of a Greek original.

  9. The Following User Says Thank You to Hobie For Your Post:

    Right Divider (July 8th, 2019)

  10. #8
    Over 5000 post club Nihilo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    The North & the West
    Posts
    5,418
    Thanks
    668
    Thanked 1,290 Times in 1,042 Posts

    Mentioned
    15 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    280989
    I have one test: What does the version render Matthew 28:6 KJV, Mark 16:6 KJV, and Luke 24:6 KJV?

    Matthew 28:6 NCV // Matthew 28:6 RSV // Matthew 28:6 NIV

    Mark 16:6 NCV // Mark 16:6 RSV // Mark 16:6 NIV

    Luke 24:6 NCV // Luke 24:6 RSV // Luke 24:6 NIV

    No "RSV." But all these others look fine.
    THE LORD JESUS CHRIST IS RISEN. Matthew 28:6 (KJV) Mark 16:6 (KJV) Luke 24:6 (KJV)

    Romans 10:9 (KJV) 1st Corinthians 15:14 (KJV)

    Trevor: "I know how to drive, man."
    Ricky: "You also know how to be stupid."

  11. #9
    Journeyman Hobie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    202
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 11 Times in 10 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    115
    Quote Originally Posted by Cntrysner View Post
    I don't know much about the process used for different translations and know that man is fallible and prone to prove his belief but Christ is still present and God will preserve his word. Comparing scripture to scripture as instructed is a process that proves out which translation is better. I prefer KJV or I don't see a fault as of yet as it proves Christ and His finished work for man and fully reveals that man can do nothing and warns against adding the most miniscule thing to his word or true faith which is His faith.
    I would agree that man could sometimes use a better word in the translation, but to knowingly use corrupted text seems sinister in my opinion. The Alexandrian manuscripts many times do not even agree with each other. The Vaticanus and Sinaiticus manuscripts were found what I would call under suspicious circumstances.

    The modern versions had to use some of the Textus Receptus, since it had what I would say was a complete text and there were so many holes in these Alexandrian manuscripts. The problem is that, when the Textus Receptus disagreed with the Alexandrian manuscripts, such as the Vaticanus or the Sinaiticus, they preferred these corrupted manuscripts over the Textus Receptus the Majority Text. And they forced it through review committees that could have stopped what they were doing by putting people in key positions to make sure no one held up the version.

    The Minority Texts were corrupted by Egyptian Gnosticism mostly in
    Alexandria with many changes, which are mostly deletions. The Gnostics were a group that did not believe in the virgin birth, that Jesus was the Son of God, that Jesus was resurrected to heaven, that Jesus was the Creator, or that Jesus made atonement for our sins.

    There are many alterations in the Alexandrian manuscripts (Minority Text), the Codex Alexandrian, Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus, often a single manuscript being amended by several different scribes over a period of many years.

    The Minority Texts omit approximately 200 verses from the Scriptures and contradict themselves throughout. Here is some more background on the corruption of the Minority Text from another site....

  12. #10
    Old Timer
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    462
    Thanks
    4
    Thanked 68 Times in 56 Posts

    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    15899
    Quote Originally Posted by Hobie View Post
    There are basically only 2 streams of Bible versions
    I think that you already told the answer yourself.

    They are compiled from different resources available in different ages. One is not necessarily more accurate than the other. It's all about "what are available" in the different period of time.

    KJV was compiled around 1600 AD, we can't say for sure what resources had been used.

    For an example,

    KJV was based on sources A, B, C, D.
    Another stream of Bible however used B, E, F, G, H, I, they are all later scrolls, say, after 4th century.

    Today's humans however already lost scrolls from sources A, C and D. They could be 2rd century sources and could possibly be more (or less) accurate than the 4th century materials.

    On the other hand, we are talking about best human efforts possibly acquired. That's to say, KJV reflects the best human efforts in 1600 while the other stream is the best human efforts in another age. God doesn't demand a supernatural version of Bible. He demands a best effort human witnessing, as long as both streams are theologically identical conveying the same message for human salvation!

  13. #11
    Trainee
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Posts
    9
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    0
    In general, you should consider newer translations that make use of the Dead Sea Scrolls and other manuscripts that were not available decades ago. These include NRSV, NABRE, etc.

  14. #12
    Journeyman Hobie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    202
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 11 Times in 10 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    115
    Quote Originally Posted by Hawkins View Post
    I think that you already told the answer yourself.

    They are compiled from different resources available in different ages. One is not necessarily more accurate than the other. It's all about "what are available" in the different period of time.

    KJV was compiled around 1600 AD, we can't say for sure what resources had been used.

    For an example,

    KJV was based on sources A, B, C, D.
    Another stream of Bible however used B, E, F, G, H, I, they are all later scrolls, say, after 4th century.

    Today's humans however already lost scrolls from sources A, C and D. They could be 2rd century sources and could possibly be more (or less) accurate than the 4th century materials.

    On the other hand, we are talking about best human efforts possibly acquired. That's to say, KJV reflects the best human efforts in 1600 while the other stream is the best human efforts in another age. God doesn't demand a supernatural version of Bible. He demands a best effort human witnessing, as long as both streams are theologically identical conveying the same message for human salvation!
    Well not exactly correct as one stream is from corrupted sources, the Alexandrian manuscripts. The Textus Receptus was from the vast number of manuscripts, almost all that were out there which scholars could use to verify and make sure it was not changed. This was known as the Received Text also called the Byzantine Text or the Majority Text because it is based on the vast majority of manuscripts still in existence. These manuscripts were brought together by various editors such as Lucian , Erasmus, Stephanus, Beza and the Elzevir brothers to form the text we refer to as the Textus Receptus, the name given to the Majority Text. When the early Protestant Reformers of the 16th and 17th centuries decided to translate the scriptures directly from Greek into the languages of Europe, they selected Textus Receptus as their foundation Greek document, it was reliable and true as the various manuscripts showed, even the Dead Sea scrolls. A 'best human effort' is not what Hort and Westcott were doing, they were picking up what they knew was corrupted by Gnostics of Alexandria and using it for there own purposes.

  15. #13
    Journeyman Hobie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    202
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 11 Times in 10 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    115
    Quote Originally Posted by deborah View Post
    Apologies for my basic answer. But I too have struggled with which bible version is the best. I know some hold to the kjv as other versions have parts of scripture missing. However what about the thought that actually the kjv added parts that were not there , to uphold the majesty of kingship , the place of women etc ext .
    Look at the following points:
    •Textus Receptus is based on the vast majority (90%) of the 5000+ Greek manuscripts in existence. That is why it is also called the Majority Text.
    •Textus Receptus is not mutilated with deletions, additions and amendments, as is the Minority Text.
    •Textus Receptus agrees with the earliest versions of the Bible: Peshitta (AD150) Old Latin Vulgate (AD157), the Italic Bible (AD157) etc. These Bibles were produced some 200 years before the minority Egyptian/Alexandrian codices.
    •Textus Receptus agrees wih the vast majority of the 86,000+ citations from scripture by the early church fathers.
    •Textus Receptus is untainted with Egyptian/Alexandrian Gnostic philosophy and unbelief.
    •Textus Receptus strongly upholds the fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith: the creation account in Genesis, the divinity of Jesus Christ, the virgin birth, the Saviour's miracles, his bodily resurrection, his literal return and the cleansing power of his blood!

    The same cannot be said of the Minority Text (the Nestle/Aland Text) from the Alexandrian manuscripts on which these new versions are based on.

  16. The Following User Says Thank You to Hobie For Your Post:

    Right Divider (July 11th, 2019)

  17. #14
    Journeyman Hobie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    202
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 11 Times in 10 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    115
    Quote Originally Posted by deborah View Post
    Apologies for my basic answer. But I too have struggled with which bible version is the best. I know some hold to the kjv as other versions have parts of scripture missing. However what about the thought that actually the kjv added parts that were not there , to uphold the majesty of kingship , the place of women etc ext .
    Well look at the first page that says what it is based on and if it says the Nestle/Aland Text or Greek New Testament by Westcott/Hort as a basis, then it is based on the corrupted Alexandrian codices. Now the King James Version and those based on the Textus Receptus or Majority Text are the ones you want to have, as it is very hard to change the meaning with so many copies, 5000+ Greek manuscripts in existence. This ensures the integrity of the words and meaning, but if you use the Alexandrian Egyptian Texts which is basically a few copies which have gnostic influences and other corruptions, then you are looking for trouble.

  18. The Following User Says Thank You to Hobie For Your Post:

    Right Divider (Yesterday)

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
About us
Since 1997 TheologyOnline (TOL) has been one of the most popular theology forums on the internet. On TOL we encourage spirited conversation about religion, politics, and just about everything else.

follow us