Comparing a few Verses From KJV of Bible

There are many Bible translations and versions into English from the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek language texts. And over the centuries since the King James Version many manuscripts have been discovered, and understanding of ancient language has become better, so that more accurate and better translations are readily available.

There have also been found to be spurious passages that were added into later texts that were discovered when earlier manuscripts that omit such verses are found. The big one is in 1 John 5:7.

But for some reason I see many who claim to believe that the KJV to be the only one and true and correct translation into English. This is obviously because of a lack of knowledge and study.

It may first be noted that the words “in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one” (KJ) found in older translations at 1 John 5:7 are actually spurious additions to the original text. A footnote in The Jerusalem Bible, a Catholic translation, says that these words are “not in any of the early Greek MSS [manuscripts], or any of the early translations, or in the best MSS of the Vulg[ate] itself.” A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, by Bruce Metzger (1975, pp. 716-718), traces in detail the history of the spurious passage. It states that the passage is first found in a treatise entitled Liber Apologeticus, of the fourth century, and that it appears in Old Latin and Vulgate manuscripts of the Scriptures, beginning in the sixth century. Modern translations as a whole, both Catholic and Protestant, do not include them in the main body of the text, because of recognizing their spurious nature.​—RS, NE, NAB.

Spirit

But not only spurius texts, but old English hinders a readers understanding of the translation. I just wanted to post a couple of striking examples to show how much easier modern English helps someone to understand a Bible passage, while reading the archaic prose in the KJV leaves one perplexed and lost as to the meaning of the passage:


Genesis 25:29:

"And Jacob sod pottage: and Esau came from the field, and he was faint."-KJV

compare with modern English:

"On one occasion Jacob was boiling some stew when Eʹsau returned from the field exhausted."-NWT


Isaiah 14:23:

"I will also make it a possession for the bittern, and pools of water: and I will sweep it with the besom of destruction, saith the Lord of hosts."-KJV

compare

“And I will make her a possession of porcupines and a region of marshes, and I will sweep her with the broom of annihilation,” declares Jehovah of armies."-NWT

Matthew 5:3

"Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven."-KJV

compare

“Happy are those conscious of their spiritual need, since the Kingdom of the heavens belongs to them."-NWT

Matthew 11:12:

"And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force.-KJV

compare

"From the days of John the Baptist until now, the Kingdom of the heavens is the goal toward which men press, and those pressing forward are seizing it."-NWT

1 Corinthians 10:24, 25

"Let no man seek his own, but every man another's wealth. Whatsoever is sold in the shambles, that eat, asking no question for conscience sake."-KJV

compare

"Let each one keep seeking, not his own advantage, but that of the other person.  Eat whatever is sold in a meat market, making no inquiry because of your conscience."-NWT


Philippians 1:8

"For God is my record, how greatly I long after you all in the bowels of Jesus Christ."-KJV

compare

"For God is my witness of how I am longing for all of you with such tender affection as Christ Jesus has."-NWT


Translation from one language to another is never going to be exact. There are nuisances and idiosyncrasies in one language that do not literally translate over into another language correctly. A translator must decide how much of a literal rendering is needed, and what should be added to make a phrase understood in the language being translated into.

That is why there are so many translations. And one may not necessarily be better over another. And one may have a flavor that brings certain things out better than another. Of course any Bible translation that is reliable can be used to learn the truth, but certainly a modern-day translation that sticks to both accurate rendering and the overall message is a good one.

a reply to: Eyestosee
While the point about archaic language is valid, there's also danger when modern translation drifts into paraphrase. The danger is that if the paraphraser misses the point of the text, his version prevents readers from seeing what he has missed.
Compare, for example;
"... but saved Noah, the eighth person" (2 Peter ch2 v5, AV)
"...but preserved Noah, with seven other persons" (2 Peter ch2 v5, RSV)
That number "eighth" has a symbolic signficance which is quite invisible to anyone using the second translation.

Incidentally, a bittern is a bird and a porcupine is an animal, so replacing the first word with the second was not a good idea. Especially since the word "bittern" is not archaic, just unfamiliar to anyone who doesn't know birds.

a reply to: DISRAELI

Agreed. A paraphrased translation would tend to be the least accurate overall. I don't tend to read paraphrased trasnslations.

As to your point on porcupine I looked up why it was translated thus in the NWT and this is what I got:

There is considerable dispute as to the exact meaning of the Hebrew word qip·podhʹ, variously rendered “bittern” (KJ, Da), “bustard” (NE), “hedgehog” (AT, Le), and “porcupine(s)” (AS, NW). (Isa 14:23; 34:11; Zep 2:14) In the light of Hebrew etymology, G. R. Driver rejects the rendering “bittern” and suggests that the Hebrew qip·podhʹ may apply both to the porcupine and to a bird. But he recommends “ruffed bustard” as a likely translation for qip·podhʹ in the above texts. (Palestine Exploration Quarterly, London, 1955, p. 137) Koehler and Baumgartner prefer “hedgehog” at Isaiah 14:23; 34:11, but “short-eared owl” at Zephaniah 2:14. (Lexicon in Veteris Testamenti Libros, Leiden, 1958, p. 845) That one Hebrew word may apply to two entirely different animals is illustrated by the term tin·sheʹmeth, which denotes both a flying creature, “the swan,” and a swarming creature, “the chameleon.”​—Le 11:18, 30.

Despite the uncertainty, however, there is good basis for consistently translating qip·podhʹ as either “porcupine” or “hedgehog,” rather than “bittern.” Both older and modern lexicons generally list “hedgehog” or “porcupine” as defining qip·podhʹ in all cases. These renderings have the support of the Greek Septuagint and the Latin Vulgate, as well as of Hebrew etymology and related languages such as Aramaic, Arabic, and Ethiopic.

On the basis of inferences drawn from Isaiah 14:23 and Zephaniah 2:14 regarding the desolation of Babylon and Nineveh, some raise the objection that the porcupine (or the hedgehog) could not be the animal intended, since this creature does not frequent reedy pools of water, nor can it sing or climb to the top of columns. However, according to Isaiah 14:23, not the reedy pools but Babylon was to become the possession of porcupines. One explorer of Babylon’s ruins reported finding “quantities of porcupine quills.” Similarly, the reference to a voice “singing in the window” at desolated Nineveh can apply to any bird that might perch in a deserted window or even to the sound of the wind and need not apply to the porcupine. (Zep 2:14) As to the porcupine’s ‘spending the night among the pillar capitals [the top portion of the pillars],’ it must be remembered that the picture drawn is of a city in ruins. Hence, it is certainly possible that the pillars are here regarded as fallen to the ground.

Porcupine

a reply to: Eyestosee
Just out of curiosity, since we've got onto animals; Leviticus ch11 v6, does your translation go for "hare" or "rabbit"? Trnaslations seem to vary, perhaps partly because urban translators are a little hazy about the difference. I once compared their entries in Wki and concluded that the hare was more likely to have been present in that region at the time.

originally posted by: DISRAELI
a reply to: Eyestosee
Just out of curiosity, since we've got onto animals; Leviticus ch11 v6, does your translation go for "hare" or "rabbit"? Trnaslations seem to vary, perhaps partly because urban translators are a little hazy about the difference. I once compared their entries in Wki and concluded that the hare was more likely to have been present in that region at the time.

You got me doing research. Here it is:

"Also the hare, because it chews the cud but does not have a split hoof. It is unclean for you."

Hare

Doing a little more digging I find that some skeptics doubted the accuracy of Leviticus calling the hare a chewer of the cud. Turns out the Bible was right...

The Scriptural reference to the hare as a cud chewer has frequently been doubted by some critics of the Bible. (Le 11:4, 6; De 14:7) It should not be overlooked, however, that the modern, scientific classification of what constitutes chewing of the cud provides no basis for judging what the Bible says, as such classification did not exist in the time of Moses. Even in the 18th century, English poet William Cowper, who had at length observed his domestic hares, commented that they “chewed the cud all day till evening.” Linnaeus, famed naturalist of the same century, believed that rabbits chewed the cud. But it remained for others to supply more scientific data. Frenchman Morot discovered in 1882 that rabbits reingest up to 90 percent of their daily intake. Concerning the hare, Ivan T. Sanderson in a recent publication remarks: “One of the most extraordinary [habits], to our way of thinking, is their method of digestion. This is not unique to Leporids [hares, rabbits] and is now known to occur in many Rodents. When fresh green food, as opposed to desiccated [dried] winter forage, is available, the animals gobble it up voraciously and then excrete it around their home lairs in a semi-digested form. After some time this is then re-eaten, and the process may be repeated more than once. In the Common Rabbit, it appears that only the fully grown adults indulge this practice.”​—Living Mammals of the World, 1955, p. 114.

Certain British scientists made close observations of the rabbits’ habits under careful controls, and the results they obtained were published in the Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London, 1940, Vol. 110, pp. 159-163. Briefly this is the way the hare reingests its food: If a rabbit eats a breakfast of fresh food, it passes through the stomach into the small intestine, leaving behind in the cardiac end of the stomach some 40 or 50 grams of pellets that were already present when the fresh food was eaten. From the small intestine the morning meal enters the caecum or blind end of the large intestine and there remains for a period of time. During the day the pellets descend, and in the intestines the bacterial protein in them is digested. When they reach the large intestine they bypass the material in the caecum and go on into the colon where the excess moisture is absorbed to produce the familiar dry beans or droppings that are cast away. This phase of the cycle completed, the material stored in the dead end of the caecum next enters the colon, but instead of having all the moisture absorbed it reaches the anus in a rather soft condition. It is in pellet form with each coated with a tough layer of mucus to prevent them from sticking together. Now when these pellets reach the anus, instead of being cast away, the rabbit doubles up and takes them into the mouth and stores them away in the cardiac end of the stomach until another meal has been eaten. In this way the special rhythmic cycle is completed and most of the food has passed a second time through the digestive tract.

Dr. Waldo L. Schmitt, Head Curator, Department of Zoology of the Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C., in commenting on these findings, wrote: “There seems to be no reason to doubt the authenticity of the reports of various workers that rabbits customarily store semi-digested food in the caecum and that this is later reingested and passes a second time through the digestive tract.” He also observed that here is an explanation for “the phenomenally large caecum of rabbits as compared with most other mammals.”​—Awake!, April 22, 1951, pp. 27, 28.

Cud Chewer

a reply to: Eyestosee


Pieces of the bible were written way after Jesus times, because of that, certain pieces of the bible are a sham.
Books of the bible were chosen by men and many texts were excluded....the fallacy of man's choices was not excluded.

The cornthians and proverbs are great books to me but....(there is always a but) the guy who wrote corinthians never knew Jesus, never lived in his time, was an agent of the Romans and even admitted to being a Roman.

It is like the government paying me money 500 yrs from now, to write everything I know about YOU.
The accuracy is going to be laughable in comparing it to how your family members would write and describe you.

There are many things people ignore and many things people take as gospel....it is more like swimming in an ocean of pea soup filled with sharks......nobody really knows where they are going and everyone is blind and angry.

a reply to: Eyestosee

The problem with modern translations has a similar problem to scientific paradigms. Erroneously believing that newer is better and more accurate being that problem.

Words evolve over time. Phrasing and such also evolve over time. Thinking that now we are better at translating ancient texts can lead to great folly.


Jaden

a reply to: DrumsRfun

nobody really knows where they are going and everyone is blind and angry.

Funny, that hasn't been my experience with the Bible at all....maybe with a lot of churches, but you have to separate the believers from the text if you are to judge it objectively.

You state that Paul was a Roman agent as though it were fact. There is no proof of that. He was a Roman citizen, but that didn't make him an agent by default. Again, its important to distinguish your subjective opinion from the subject matter else you'll encounter a situation where, nobody really knows where they are going and everyone is blind and angry.

originally posted by: Masterjaden
a reply to: Eyestosee

The problem with modern translations has a similar problem to scientific paradigms. Erroneously believing that newer is better and more accurate being that problem.

Words evolve over time. Phrasing and such also evolve over time. Thinking that now we are better at translating ancient texts can lead to great folly.


Jaden

Advances in understanding ancient languages and the fact that our languages are living and change over time, means that fresher translations with up-to-date understanding, and up-to-date words that the common man understand means that modern-day versions should be easier to read thus more understandable, and more accurate.

a reply to: Eyestosee

I like to compare translations. My version of choice for general reading is NASB, but I like to compare KJV with Young's Literal, as well as a few newer versions. I find it helps me develop a broader idea of what the writer's intent was. I don't think any single translation can ever grasp the magnitude of the original languages.

The KJV rendered four different words,

sheol

hades

gehenna

&

tartarus

as "Hell" when a transliteration would have been better...but the insertion of "hell" kept the pews and the offering plates full.

King James equals Freemason.
reply to: Eyestosee

a reply to: DISRAELI

Yeah wouldn't want to miss the jesus

a reply to: Eyestosee

There are many Bible translations and versions into English from the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek language texts. And over the centuries since the King James Version many manuscripts have been discovered, and understanding of ancient language has become better, so that more accurate and better translations are readily available. There have also been found to be spurious passages that were added into later texts that were discovered when earlier manuscripts that omit such verses are found. The big one is in 1 John 5:7.

There are no known original texts of either the Hebrew or Greek bibles. It is not clear to any scholar the complete understanding of the letters intended for assorted congregations. We do have Greek and Hebrew/Aramaic concordances which helps us to understand some points of our understanding but to assume any authors intent should not a wise method of study. We can not play the word game without the original pattern and we certainly do not have that pattern.

quote
There are currently over 5000 extant Greek manuscripts of the New Testament in one form or another (miniscules, unicals, lectionaries). Approximately 99% of them agree with each other and the KJV; the remaining 1% disagreeing with themselves as often as the majority. The four centuries since the KJV was translated have provided no "deluge" of new material. In fact, almost every non-KJV reading found since 1611 was known before 1611 and were rejected by the KJV translators.

When a critic insists that "recent finds" demand more revisions, he is misleading you. The vast majority of textual evidence found since 1611 disagrees with modern critical readings! This is not to say that a majority reading is the sole consideration in selecting a variant, but it does show that modern scholarship scrapes the barrel routinely to find reasons to sell you a new Bible every year.

For more details, see Which Version is the Bible? by Floyd Nolen Jones, chapter 3.
The following is from Sam Gipp's The Answer Book.

QUESTION: I've heard that there have been many manuscripts discovered since 1611 that the King James translators didn't have access to. Do these strengthen or weaken the King James Bible?

ANSWER: They strengthen the King James Bible.

EXPLANATION: There have been many manuscripts found since 1611, but there have been no new READINGS found.

Many critics of the Word of God have used the argument of "new evidence" that the King James translators didn't have as a basis to degrade its authority. The fact is, the King James translators had all of the readings available to them that modern critics have available to them today.

One of the most prominent manuscripts which has been discovered since 1611 is the Sinaitic manuscript. This witness, though horribly flawed, was found amongst trash paper in St. Catherine's monastery at the foot of Mt. Sinai in 1841 by Constantine Tischendorf.

Sinaiticus is a sister manuscript of the corrupt manuscript Vaticanus. Both read very similarly. So, although the Sinaitic manuscript was discovered over 200 years after the Authorized Version was translated, its READINGS were well known to the translators through the Vatican manuscript which was discovered in 1481 and also through the Jesuit Bible, an English translation of 1582.

So we see that there are no readings available today to scholars which were not already in the hands of the King James translators. We might further add that an honest scholar will admit that this "great number of newly discovered manuscripts" that are trumpt abroad agree with the Greek text of the Authorized Version rather than challenging it.
Unquote
Source av1611.com...

a reply to: DrumsRfun

The cornthians and proverbs are great books to me but....(there is always a but) the guy who wrote corinthians never knew Jesus, never lived in his time, was an agent of the Romans and even admitted to being a Roman.

The 1st Cepher of Corinthians is considered a pseudepigraphal work from Philippi by Stephanas, Fortunatus, Achaicuc and Timotheus. Stephanas, Fortunatus, and Achaicuc were all Christian disciples of St. Paul in the Corinth congregation. Timoyjy was a Apostle of Jesus.

The 2nd Cepher of Corinthians was also considered a pseudepigraphal work from Philppi [city of Macedonia] and accredited to Titus and Lucas who were both Apostles of Jesus.

All men involved in this work were Christians of the Christ Jesus.

a reply to: EyestoseeBTW, your words are very JW like. Down to the very word Spurious and the pick to use 1John 5:7. We have been around the block with JW's for years. They are a cult that uses a bible but make claims you are lost if you aren't member of the JW's, that their scholars and their magazines Watch tower and AWAKE and other publications are better than the KJV Bible and can correct it. They deny the basic doctrines of the Bible that Christians follow.

I will give you $1 Million dollars if you or anyone else can give me one original Greek, Hebrew or Aramaic document. Not a facimile, not a copy, especially not a copy, I have sent letters to the Vatican, to universities in England, To universities in Germany and to all the Christian and Jewish universities in America.

Not one of them could produce even one actual original document, they have all confessed in letters to me, that all they have are copies. So my follow up letter asked if they did not have the original documents how can you be sure it is accurate? I never got a reply after that.

The only believed to be original documents they have in the Vatican are two Vaticanius, Sinaiticus, I believe there is another but I cannot remember its name. However they came from 350AD and are on Vellum. And have been dated to that time as were many of the archeology finds over the last 150 years. The bible was already complete 250 years before any of them were written.

So how do we get the true inspired bible? By scholars? By religious men?

No, from God. he said in Psalm 12:6-7 that he would preserve his word to every generation forever. If that be true there is one Bible that is whole complete and inspired in English preserved by god to godly men who translated and were inspired to create the Authorized version of 1611.

I will give on example the name Jesus is found in the Bible 942 times. All but seven are actually found in the copies of Greek text we have they transliterated the name Iesous 917 times. Of the seven remaining uses, 6 are in Italics meaning they were added by the AV1611 translators as they were inspired of God to preserve his word, because in English those six uses would read very crazy and would lead to confusion. And the one last remaining use of the name Jesus is translated from the Greek word "autos", usually means him/her/he/she and sometimes it. By inspiration God led them to put the name Jesus in place of the word autos because you would be pointed to the wrong him in the chapter section.

Heads up,

I am not a good Christian but I have become aware that many groups of youths are burning the bible in your country and that a rabid hatred of Christianity is being formulated out there,this I believe will progress from underground into the open soon.The Devil uses fear and hatred for his own purposes and your country has taken the bait hook line and sinker,I am seeing even here formerly rational and level headed posters becoming angry and emotional.I believe bad things are on the way take care.

a reply to: ChesterJohn

I made a mistype 942 times Jesus is found in scripture 935 times not 917. Not sure how I did it but other than the mistyped numbers everything else is correct.