# KJV Compare to the REST



## SolaGratia (Jan 30, 2009)

Link and scroll down:KJV 1611 Yahoo Group Posts


Example Below:


1 Peter 1:22
(KJV) Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth *through the Spirit *unto unfeigned love of the brethren, see that ye love one another with a pure heart fervently:

(NIV) Now that you have purified yourselves by obeying the truth so that you have sincere love for your brothers, love one another deeply, from the heart.
(ESV) Having purified your souls by your obedience to the truth for a sincere brotherly love, love one another earnestly from a pure heart,
(HCSB) By obedience to the truth, having purified yourselves for sincere love of the brothers, love one another earnestly from a pure heart,
(NASB) Since you have in obedience to the truth purified your souls for a sincere love of the brethren, fervently love one another from the heart, 
(1901 ASV) Seeing ye have purified your souls in your obedience to the truth unto unfeigned love of the brethren, love one another from the heart fervently:
(RSV) Having purified your souls by your obedience to the truth for a sincere love of the brethren, love one another earnestly from the heart. 
(NRSV) Now that you have purified your souls by your obedience to the truth so that you have genuine mutual love, love one another deeply from the heart.
(NWT-Jehovah’s Witnesses) Now that YOU have purified YOUR souls by [YOUR] obedience to the truth with unhypocritical brotherly love as the result, love one another intensely from the heart.
(NAB-Roman Catholic) By obedience to the truth you have purified yourselves for a genuine love of your brothers; therefore, love one another constantly from the heart.

Textus Receptus
taV yucaV umwn hgnikoteV en th upakoh thV alhqeiaV dia pneumatoV eiV jiladeljian anupokriton ek kaqaraV kardiaV allhlouV agaphsate ektenwV

Hort-Westcott
taV yucaV umwn hgnikoteV en th upakoh thV alhqeiaV eiV jiladeljian anupokriton ek kardiaV allhlouV agaphsate ektenwV


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Jan 30, 2009)

Make that...

Textus Receptus

taV yucaV umwn hgnikoteV en th upakoh thV alhqeiaV dia pneumatoV eiV jiladeljian anupokriton ek kaqaraV kardiaV allhlouV agaphsate ektenwV

Hort-Westcott
taV yucaV umwn hgnikoteV en th upakoh thV alhqeiaV eiV jiladeljian anupokriton ek kardiaV allhlouV agaphsate ektenwV


----------



## Grymir (Jan 30, 2009)

My Geneva has the 'through the spirit' too. Those words change the meaning and the emphisis of the verse. One, the spirits work, one, man's work. hmm.


----------



## SolaGratia (Jan 30, 2009)

There's plenty of more in the above link provided.


Here's one more.

Galatians 3:1

(KJV) O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, _*that ye should not obey the truth,*_ before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you?

(1611 KJV) O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that you should not obey the trueth, before whose eyes Iesus Christ hath been euidently set forth, crucified among you?


(NIV) You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? Before your very eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed as crucified.
(NASV) You foolish Galatians, who has bewitched you, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified?
(NLT) Oh, foolish Galatians! What magician has cast an evil spell on you? For you used to see the meaning of Jesus Christ's death as clearly as though I had shown you a signboard with a picture of Christ dying on the cross. 
(ESV) O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? It was before your eyes that Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified. 
(CEV) You stupid Galatians! I told you exactly how Jesus Christ was nailed to a cross. Has someone now put an evil spell on you?
(1901 ASV) O foolish Galatians, who did bewitch you, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was openly set forth crucified? 
(HCSB) You foolish Galatians! Who has hypnotized you, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was vividly portrayed as crucified?
(RSV) O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified?
(NAB-Roman Catholic) O stupid Galatians! Who has bewitched you, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified? 
(NWT-Jehovah’s Witnesses) O senseless Ga·la´tians, who is it that brought YOU under evil influence, YOU before whose eyes Jesus Christ was openly portrayed impaled?

Textus Receptus
w anohtoi galatai tiV umaV ebaskanen th alhqeia mh peiqesqai oiV kat ojqalmouV ihsouV cristoV proegrajh en umin estaurwmenoV

Hort Westcott
w anohtoi galatai tiV umaV ebaskanen oiV kat ojqalmouV ihsouV cristoV proegrajh estaurwmenoV

Corrupted Manuscripts
Aleph 01 - Sinaiticus - Fourth century
A 02 - Alexandrinus - Fifth century
B 03 - Vaticanus - Fourth century
C 04 - Ephraemi Rescriptus - Fifth century


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Jan 30, 2009)

Just to throw a spanner in the works - note 1 John 3:1. 
KJV "Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God"

Compare this to the ESV:
"See what kind of love the Father has given to us, that we should be called children of God; and so we are. The reason why the world does not know us is that it did not know him.

The KJV 'deletes' the words 'and so we are'. Does this mean the KJV is 'guilty' of denying our assurance of salvation???

We do need to dig deeper than this in the debate over textual criticism.


----------



## SolaGratia (Jan 30, 2009)

This is *only a comparison *between the KJV and other english translation.


----------



## Jesus is my friend (Jan 30, 2009)

I prefer the 1599 Geneva but,both are splendid


Grace and Peace to you


----------



## toddpedlar (Jan 30, 2009)

SolaGratia said:


> This is *only a comparison *between the KJV and other english translation.



Can you explain what you mean by "this is *only a comparison* between the KJV and other english translation"? 

Of course it's a comparison... but not "only" a comparison. I will admit that I could in principle be wrong, but it seems to me that *clearly* you are implying something by laying out these things in this way. It would be appreciated, I think, if you didn't try to pass it off as some sort of 'neutral comparison'. One doesn't just volunteer this sort of thing without a message being given underneath it.


----------



## CDM (Jan 30, 2009)

See this thread:
http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/av-theology-compared-modern-versions-19437/


----------



## kalawine (Jan 30, 2009)

toddpedlar said:


> SolaGratia said:
> 
> 
> > This is *only a comparison *between the KJV and other english translation.
> ...


----------



## blhowes (Jan 30, 2009)

SolaGratia said:


> Textus Receptus
> taV yucaV umwn hgnikoteV en th upakoh thV alhqeiaV dia pneumatoV eiV jiladeljian anupokriton ek kaqaraV kardiaV allhlouV agaphsate ektenwV
> 
> Hort-Westcott
> taV yucaV umwn hgnikoteV en th upakoh thV alhqeiaV eiV jiladeljian anupokriton ek kardiaV allhlouV agaphsate ektenwV


This has always puzzled me why there are so many differences in the manuscripts. 

Is it a plot of Satan as some books I've read argue? Example from "Which Bible?":
In other words, during the early Christian centuries Satan directed his assault not only upon the New Testament canon but also upon the New Testament text...​
Or was it careless transcribing?

Or was it...?


----------



## TimV (Jan 30, 2009)

> Is it a plot of Satan as some books I've read argue? Example from "Which Bible?":
> In other words, during the early Christian centuries Satan directed his assault not only upon the New Testament canon but also upon the New Testament text...
> Or was it careless transcribing?
> 
> Or was it...?



Questions like that all require lots of thought and study. It's so much easier to just say the version put together by the Dutch guy was inspired by God to be perfect. It saves huge amounts of time and effort. 

Of course, the Apostles didn't think that way. They also felt that God's Word was kept pure in all ages, but not necessarily in one volume hidden in a temple somewhere. They freely quoted from two very different textual traditions, the Masoretic Hebrew and the Greek Septuagint, much in the same way most of the Elders reading this thread choose from between several traditions when they prepare their sermons.


----------



## blhowes (Jan 30, 2009)

TimV said:


> Questions like that all require lots of thought and study. It's so much easier to just say the version put together by the Dutch guy was inspired by God to be perfect. It saves huge amounts of time and effort.


From your studies, have you come to conclusions that satisfy you about why there are so many differences?


----------



## Zenas (Jan 30, 2009)

Evidence that the ESV is a man-centric deviation from the re-inspiration of the KJV!


----------



## TimV (Jan 30, 2009)

> From your studies, have you come to conclusions that satisfy you about why there are so many differences?



All scholars (note the word scholar doesn't include conspiracy theorists) have pointed out that clumsy scribes make errors. Every one from Augustine to Erasmus took that as a given.

So what? The Apostles knew this was true, and quoted from differing translations. Paul didn't thump on John for using the Septuagint in addition to the Hebrew. 

What do you want? Christianity is based on faith. 

There was a Star Trek episode where Captain archer was given the Vulcan prophet's Katra through a mind meld. This led him to an ancient cave, where the TRUE TEACHINGS were kept. They brought it to the Vulcan Senate and when they turned it on, it was proof that everyone accepted of the TRUE TEACHING.

But it ain't gonna happen. No Indiana Jones is going to open a crypt and find a copy of the Bible with 66 Books that was written by God's own finger. There's just no way around rolling up one's sleeves and working.

It's also very true and needs to be understood and accepted that this is a hard subject, and not everyone has the background and ability to comprehend the discussions going back and forth. So there is a very real faith involved here as well. And for those who are confused, I would suggest that one of the reasons you have Elders, and for Reformed folk denominations, is that God has given you teachers to help with these hard subjects.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jan 30, 2009)

I think Tim has made a very important observation here:


> I would suggest that one of the reasons you have Elders, and for Reformed folk denominations, is that God has given you teachers to help with these hard subjects


The church is vital to our well-being for the understanding of our faith.

No one (no one who loves the Reformation and Bibles for everyone) wants to deny the "right of private interpretation." The problem with us today is that some Protestants have taken such a doctrine to the opposite extreme as the Romanists have taken theirs. Rome says NONE, while the opposite end says ALL.Let's digress for a moment.

Apologists for Rome take cover in a mythical unity of interpretive authority. It happens to be "unifed" under whatever the current pope (the Head) declares. Never mind if this pope contradicts that pope, they still confess that it is all the mind of God, and non-contradictory (if only we understood it). They solve this problem by choosing one earthly interpreter, implicitly trusted by everyone.

What's really perverse is, Romanism embraces the entire gamut of religious thought, liberalism & conservatism, universalism and particularism, deity of Christ and its denial, etc.--anyone and everyone can be a member in good standing of the RCC. Only one thing he has to say at the end of all his religious formulations: "Everything I argue for is subject to review by the Roman curia." Nice escape clause.

The radical view is the polar opposite, in which all the separate minds of the church are equally authoritative. "If I thought of it, or if it makes sense to me, it must be true." There's no more humility in this view that in Rome's claim.​There is a correct view of the relationship between the Bible (the mind of God), the individual mind, and the mind of the church. The proper view places God's Word at the top, and the mind of man and the church at the same level below. The difference between the individual mind and the mind of the church is that there is MORE of the latter.

The "weight" of the whole church and the priority assigned to the offices in it gives it greater authority than the "weight" of the individual when side-by-side comparison. Of course, the individual is still obliged to maintain a clear conscience before his God. God's Word has more weight than any lower combination.

The individual Christian has a duty to listen to the Voice of the Good Shepherd, with the least amount of mediation possible. But he also has a lesser but still real duty to listen to the voice of the church, to listen in community. The Christian should have a realistic view of his own fallibility! Our "ears" have "static". The point of recognizing and appointing leaders to guide us is that we trust their hearing is better (though not perfect) than the majority's. Even then, do we trust one single guy to lead? No way, but the whole session, and the whole Presbytery, and the whole church listens to one another.


And now, to the issue of text. There IS a "better" text. But I have to admit, I don't know which one it is. There are "better" Bibles, like there are "better" radios. The signal for the radio originates in one place. The speaker says whatever he says; his diction is perfect, his voice a beautiful modulation. We have our various "receivers" with their loudspeakers. Some of these radios have some tuning defects; some of the vocals come out mushy no matter what the volume set or the squelch.

There are problems with the ears of the listeners, problems with the ether, problems with the innards of the radio, problems, problems, problems. Its a wonder anyone can understand anything of that transmission, perfect as it was from the studio.

On top of all those problems, some people are having a extra problem (either with themselves or with this distraction over here) with an argument going on over the merits of RCA over GE brand radios. Some people being so sold on "their" brand, that they accuse the other of being responsible for the "poverty" of other people's listening experience. They are actually angry that the other company is in business at all.

Truth is, the average guy can't tell much difference between the two. Other than superficial quality. Get used to one of them, and the other may sound a bit funny. But its hard to tell (!) that one is broadcasting a football game, and the other a political debate. No wait... aren't they both broadcasting the same program? They are both tuned to the same station, at the same time.


A final word. No one should take this commentary and parable as a resounding rebuke for even having arguments over the merits of respective radios/translations/texts. No, I think those have value in their place. You might be surprised to know which side in the debate I favor.

But I'll tell you this: there are people dear to me who stop short of being willing to study the Bible with me, not because I wouldn't be willing to use a translation they were comfortable with, but because I don't think the KJV is the ONLY place where God's Word is reliable. Isn't that tragic?

Here, I think it is better that there be ANY translation in the most hands possible, and sort out mistakes in understanding, and value (or lack thereof) of this or that "brand" in the context of the church--but they won't admit of it. They have been taught by their former teachers that those who do not adhere to the KJV brand are not to be trusted in doctrine. Better to follow false-teaching from a KJV-handling teacher, than an advocate of historic Christianity with "something other than God's Word version" in his hand.

That is a total corruption of the debate. It puts it in a completely different realm. In comparison, the arguments we have here over the merits of the text-families seem like a tempest in a teapot.


----------



## JohnGill (Jan 30, 2009)

Stephen L Smith said:


> Just to throw a spanner in the works - note 1 John 3:1.
> KJV "Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God"
> 
> Compare this to the ESV:
> ...



The words aren't in the TR which is quoted after each block.


----------



## Marrow Man (Jan 30, 2009)

toddpedlar said:


> I will admit that I could in principle be wrong, but it seems to me that *clearly* you are implying something by laying out these things in this way. It would be appreciated, I think, if you didn't try to pass it off as some sort of 'neutral comparison'. One doesn't just volunteer this sort of thing without a message being given underneath it.



 I also would agree that it is not helpful to have the phrase "Corrupted Manuscripts" appear in post # 4 if this is intended to be a "neutral" discussion.


----------



## SolaScriptura (Jan 30, 2009)

Contra_Mundum said:


> But I'll tell you this: there are people dear to me who stop short of being willing to study the Bible with me, not because I wouldn't be willing to use a translation they were comfortable with, but because I don't think the KJV is the ONLY place where God's Word is reliable. Isn't that tragic?



Not only is it tragic... it is ridiculously tragic!


----------



## fredtgreco (Jan 30, 2009)

SolaScriptura said:


> Contra_Mundum said:
> 
> 
> > But I'll tell you this: there are people dear to me who stop short of being willing to study the Bible with me, not because I wouldn't be willing to use a translation they were comfortable with, but because I don't think the KJV is the ONLY place where God's Word is reliable. Isn't that tragic?
> ...



That is not only ridiculously tragic, it is sinful and needs to be repented of, not just "dropped as a position."


----------



## DMcFadden (Jan 30, 2009)

Before coming to the PB, I was blissfullly ignorant that there were many people around any more who did not simply accept the CT as correct. Afterall, that is what my teachers all told me: people from the fundys to the liberals "all" accept the central canons of textual criticism these days. So, like the remarkable unanimity of 59-0 in voting to oust Gov. Blago in IL yesterday, it just didn't seem to be much of an issue to me.

Now, after some time on the PB, the intelligent arguments from TR and MT proponents (e.g., Jerusalem Blade) have made me re-think the whole thing in much the same way as I have been re-thinking baptism and eschatology.

However, in our desire to be "correct," let us not miss the "big" picture. As important as it is to get our interpretation right (who wants to be wrong, let alone get God's Word wrong???), whether you are an historic premil or amil will not determine your eternal destination or address. These intramural debates ought not become fellowship issues. The wise ones have scratched their hoary haired beards and also concluded that one may be paedo or credo on baptism and be in good standing on the PB. 

In an analogous way, we need to keep perspective on the CT vs. TR debate. Cherry picking omissions or additions from the two textual traditions will not likely settle anything. BOTH of them have been adduced to teach Reformed theology; both of them have been adduced to proclaim Arminianism. BOTH CT and MT (or TR) advocates can be found as exemplars of just about any of the predominant eschatological positions.

We carelessly bandy about words about "corrupt" and "pure" as if things were an "all or nothing" zero sum game. Without the attractive ersatz Spanish accent, I echo the response of _Princess Bride's_ Inigo Montoya to Vezzini's continued claim that things that are obviously happening are nevertheless "inconceivable": *"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." *

Grymir will read his KJV, some of us will cherish our arguably more Reformational Geneva Bible (look who wrote the marginal notes!!!) alongside our ESVs, and others will even use a eek NIV. But, you really can have a "high view" of Scripture, accept the confessions, hold to Dordtian Calvinism, attend the "right" church, and disagree over the "correct" textual tradition.

I am constantly amazed at the intellectually nuanced arguments of some of the TR (and MT) folks. Those arguments tug at my heart. But, my reasons for siding with one against the other side is a desire to be as faithful as humanly possible to the true Word of God as it was revealed to us and given to us in the autographs. It is NOT because I think that either the TR tradition or the CT tradition ("reasoned eclecticism") is the ONLY one with a true Bible. God got people saved with the Vulgate before there was a TR. And, frankly, some of the liberties of translational philosophy employed today by some of the translators of the Bible into indigenous languages scares me more than any textual differences between the KJV and NIV.

Again, there is more to debate in the differences between formal correspondence and paraphrastic "translations" in English (cf. the NAS with the LB or Message) than between the TR and the CT. While the TR has Jn 8, the Marcan ending, and the Johannine "comma," almost every line of the LB or Message suggests something worth debating, if faithfulness to the original is our standard.


----------



## SolaGratia (Jan 30, 2009)

toddpedlar said:


> SolaGratia said:
> 
> 
> > This is *only a comparison *between the KJV and other english translation.
> ...




Have you gone to the link and seen what's there to compare (different verses between the KJV and other english translation)?

If you want to make your own comparison that's fine with me. Maybe you want to compare the ESV with the NASB, RSV, NRSV, NIV. Wait a minute, there the same, right? Then why come up with another translation?


----------



## fredtgreco (Jan 30, 2009)

SolaGratia said:


> Maybe you want to compare the ESV with the NASB, RSV, NRSV, NIV. Wait a minute, there the same, right? Then why come up with another translation?



Gil,

With all respect, this statement shows you have not even made the most rudimentary effort to read these translations. You are conflating text bases and translations, and not even doing a good job of that.


----------



## SolaGratia (Jan 30, 2009)

fredtgreco said:


> SolaGratia said:
> 
> 
> > Maybe you want to compare the ESV with the NASB, RSV, NRSV, NIV. Wait a minute, there the same, right? Then why come up with another translation?
> ...




My point was to ask a question? 

Which is, aren't these translations base on the same base text? If so, why then have more than one translation?

In other words if the NASB was sufficient for the church why should the church now read the ESV?


----------



## TimV (Jan 30, 2009)

> Which is, aren't these translations base on the same base text? If so, why then have more than one translation?
> 
> In other words if the NASB was sufficient for the church why should the church now read the ESV?



No, Gil. If you understood what we are talking about, you'd know that none of the Bibles you listed were based entirely on the same text. Just like the King James isn't based totally on the TR.

You should be a bit more humble in your postings until you learn the basics of this subject.


----------



## SolaGratia (Jan 30, 2009)

TimV said:


> > Which is, aren't these translations base on the same base text? If so, why then have more than one translation?
> >
> > In other words if the NASB was sufficient for the church why should the church now read the ESV?
> 
> ...



Your right.

I don't know, that's why I keep on asking questions and I am reading on my own. What do you recommend me to read or listen to?

All I know is that I am not going to read the ESV just because the ESV has a better binding and it comes in a study bible.


----------



## TimV (Jan 30, 2009)

> I don't know, that's why I keep on asking questions and I am reading on my own. What do you recommend me to read or listen to?
> 
> All I know is that I am not going to read the ESV just because the ESV has a better binding and it comes in a study bible.



Why should anyone care if you read the ESV? The KJV is fine, if you're unusually well read and can understand it. It's fair to call the KJV God's Word.

It's only the AVer sect which claims that all the other scholarly English Bibles AREN'T God's Word.

As to reading, what have the Elders of your church advised you to read? Believe me, I know that many Elders don't have much understanding of these issues, but what better way to get them to study the subject than to ask them these questions?

Personally, I think going through the threads on the Puritan Board dealing with this subject will give a person more understanding of these issues than 99.9% of Christians.


----------



## SolaGratia (Jan 30, 2009)

TimV,

Thanks for your patience and your brotherly admonish, it is well received.


----------



## Stomata leontôn (Jan 30, 2009)

Many of the people here better understand the issue than many seminary professors. It takes a lot of intellectual work to get it right, and many people here really have put in the time.


----------

